Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning

Farzan Homayounmehr; Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning

Farzan Homayounmehr, Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh

Published in International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 4, Issue 2-1)

Received: 30 March 2015 Accepted: 31 March 2015 Published: 30 June 2015

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate how differently input enhancement devices of bolding, underlining, and capitalizing affect L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. For this purpose, the study adopted a quasi-experimental design with a proficiency test to find the homogeneity of groups. Three classes were selected as the experimental groups (n =60), and each class was conducted by one of the input enhancement main categories. Subjects attended in six sessions to make them familiar with advantages of input enhancement in relation to vocabulary learning. Each group received different strategies and then, the researcher taught and employed those inputs in texts along with target words. Learners’ progress was measured during the six sessions of employing those inputs in responding to vocabulary questions. One-way ANOVAs series with LSD or post hoc comparisons showed that all three inputs were effective in responding to target vocabulary words but the bolding group did better than the other groups and, finally bolding target words were more effective in fostering L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. These outcomes propose that using input enhancement to answer target words are the most useful factors but bolding in this study outperformed the other ones in developing learners’ awareness to answer vocabulary tests. It can also be concluded that capitalizing is the least effective input compared to underlining and bolding input in terms of their efficacy.

Published in	International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 4, Issue 2-1) This article belongs to the Special Issue Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching Methodologies in All Fields
DOI	10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11
Page(s)	1-8
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2015. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Vocabulary, Focus on Form and Implicit Fonf

References

[1]	Catherina Doughty, Jessica Williams (1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
[2]	Clarke, D., & Nation, I.S.P. (1980).Guessing the meanings of words from context: Strategy and techniques. System, 8, 211-220.
[3]	Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: A review. Studies in second language acquisition, 21 (2), 181-192.
[4]	Dekeyser, R.M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499-533.
[5]	Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.
[6]	Ellis, R., Baştürkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.
[7]	Ellis, N.C., Beaton, A. (1993).Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43(4), 559-617.
[8]	Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.127
[9]	Hulstijn, J.H., & Laufer, B. (2001).Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558.
[10]	Kim, Y. (2008). The Role of Task-Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition. Language Learning, 58(2), 285-325.
[11]	Krashen, S.D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.
[12]	Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694-716.
[13]	Lee, S.H. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87-118.
[14]	Leow, R.P. (2001). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113-155.
[15]	Long & Robinson, (1998). The handbook of second language acquisition. John Wiley & Sons.
[16]	Nation, I.S.P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82.
[17]	Presley, M., Levin, J.R., & Delaney, J.D. (1982).The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52, 61-91.
[18]	Richard Schmit, (1990, 1993) Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Natl Foreign Lg Resource Ctr.
[19]	Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Individual differences and instructed language learning, 211-266. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[20]	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.
[21]	Schatschneider, C., Harrell, E.R., & Buck, J. (2007). An individual differences approach to the study of reading comprehension. In R.K. Wagner, A.E. Muse, & K.R. Tannenbaum (Eds.) Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension, 249-275. New York: Guilford Press.
[22]	Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.).Implicit and explicit learning of languages, 165-209. London: Academic Press.
[23]	Schmidt, R. (2000). Attention. In P. Robinson(ed.). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: CUP.136.
[24]	Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching, Cambridge: CUP.
[25]	Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363.
[26]	Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed second language acquisition: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second language acquisition, 15, 165-179.
[27]	Sheen, Y. (2002) Yellow umbrella. Kane/Miller Book Pub.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Farzan Homayounmehr, Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh. (2015). Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(2-1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Farzan Homayounmehr; Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh. Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2015, 4(2-1), 1-8. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Farzan Homayounmehr, Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh. Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning. Int J Lang Linguist. 2015;4(2-1):1-8. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11,
  author = {Farzan Homayounmehr and Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh},
  title = {Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {4},
  number = {2-1},
  pages = {1-8},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.s.2016040201.11},
  abstract = {The purpose of this study was to investigate how differently input enhancement devices of bolding, underlining, and capitalizing affect L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. For this purpose, the study adopted a quasi-experimental design with a proficiency test to find the homogeneity of groups. Three classes were selected as the experimental groups (n =60), and each class was conducted by one of the input enhancement main categories. Subjects attended in six sessions to make them familiar with advantages of input enhancement in relation to vocabulary learning. Each group received different strategies and then, the researcher taught and employed those inputs in texts along with target words. Learners’ progress was measured during the six sessions of employing those inputs in responding to vocabulary questions. One-way ANOVAs series with LSD or post hoc comparisons showed that all three inputs were effective in responding to target vocabulary words but the bolding group did better than the other groups and, finally bolding target words were more effective in fostering L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. These outcomes propose that using input enhancement to answer target words are the most useful factors but bolding in this study outperformed the other ones in developing learners’ awareness to answer vocabulary tests. It can also be concluded that capitalizing is the least effective input compared to underlining and bolding input in terms of their efficacy.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning
AU  - Farzan Homayounmehr
AU  - Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh
Y1  - 2015/06/30
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 1
EP  - 8
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11
AB  - The purpose of this study was to investigate how differently input enhancement devices of bolding, underlining, and capitalizing affect L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. For this purpose, the study adopted a quasi-experimental design with a proficiency test to find the homogeneity of groups. Three classes were selected as the experimental groups (n =60), and each class was conducted by one of the input enhancement main categories. Subjects attended in six sessions to make them familiar with advantages of input enhancement in relation to vocabulary learning. Each group received different strategies and then, the researcher taught and employed those inputs in texts along with target words. Learners’ progress was measured during the six sessions of employing those inputs in responding to vocabulary questions. One-way ANOVAs series with LSD or post hoc comparisons showed that all three inputs were effective in responding to target vocabulary words but the bolding group did better than the other groups and, finally bolding target words were more effective in fostering L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. These outcomes propose that using input enhancement to answer target words are the most useful factors but bolding in this study outperformed the other ones in developing learners’ awareness to answer vocabulary tests. It can also be concluded that capitalizing is the least effective input compared to underlining and bolding input in terms of their efficacy.
VL  - 4
IS  - 2-1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Farzan Homayounmehr

Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh

Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Farzan Homayounmehr, Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh. (2015). Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(2-1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Farzan Homayounmehr; Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh. Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2015, 4(2-1), 1-8. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Farzan Homayounmehr, Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh. Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning. Int J Lang Linguist. 2015;4(2-1):1-8. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11,
  author = {Farzan Homayounmehr and Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh},
  title = {Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {4},
  number = {2-1},
  pages = {1-8},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.s.2016040201.11},
  abstract = {The purpose of this study was to investigate how differently input enhancement devices of bolding, underlining, and capitalizing affect L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. For this purpose, the study adopted a quasi-experimental design with a proficiency test to find the homogeneity of groups. Three classes were selected as the experimental groups (n =60), and each class was conducted by one of the input enhancement main categories. Subjects attended in six sessions to make them familiar with advantages of input enhancement in relation to vocabulary learning. Each group received different strategies and then, the researcher taught and employed those inputs in texts along with target words. Learners’ progress was measured during the six sessions of employing those inputs in responding to vocabulary questions. One-way ANOVAs series with LSD or post hoc comparisons showed that all three inputs were effective in responding to target vocabulary words but the bolding group did better than the other groups and, finally bolding target words were more effective in fostering L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. These outcomes propose that using input enhancement to answer target words are the most useful factors but bolding in this study outperformed the other ones in developing learners’ awareness to answer vocabulary tests. It can also be concluded that capitalizing is the least effective input compared to underlining and bolding input in terms of their efficacy.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Investigating the Effectiveness of Input Enhancement in Relation to L2 Vocabulary Learning
AU  - Farzan Homayounmehr
AU  - Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh
Y1  - 2015/06/30
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 1
EP  - 8
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2016040201.11
AB  - The purpose of this study was to investigate how differently input enhancement devices of bolding, underlining, and capitalizing affect L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. For this purpose, the study adopted a quasi-experimental design with a proficiency test to find the homogeneity of groups. Three classes were selected as the experimental groups (n =60), and each class was conducted by one of the input enhancement main categories. Subjects attended in six sessions to make them familiar with advantages of input enhancement in relation to vocabulary learning. Each group received different strategies and then, the researcher taught and employed those inputs in texts along with target words. Learners’ progress was measured during the six sessions of employing those inputs in responding to vocabulary questions. One-way ANOVAs series with LSD or post hoc comparisons showed that all three inputs were effective in responding to target vocabulary words but the bolding group did better than the other groups and, finally bolding target words were more effective in fostering L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. These outcomes propose that using input enhancement to answer target words are the most useful factors but bolding in this study outperformed the other ones in developing learners’ awareness to answer vocabulary tests. It can also be concluded that capitalizing is the least effective input compared to underlining and bolding input in terms of their efficacy.
VL  - 4
IS  - 2-1
ER  -

Copy | Download