An Experimental study of Task-based L2 lexical Learning by Chinese EFL learners

50
An Experimental study of Task-based L2 lexical Learning by Chinese EFL learners Zhou Weijing School of Foreign Languages Jiangsu University

description

An Experimental study of Task-based L2 lexical Learning by Chinese EFL learners Zhou Weijing School of Foreign Languages Jiangsu University. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of An Experimental study of Task-based L2 lexical Learning by Chinese EFL learners

Page 1: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

An Experimental study of Task-based

L2 lexical Learning

by Chinese EFL learners

Zhou Weijing

School of Foreign Languages

Jiangsu University

Page 2: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

An Experimental Study of Task-based L2 Lexical Learning by An Experimental Study of Task-based L2 Lexical Learning by Chinese EFL LearnersChinese EFL Learners

Outline Introduction Literature review Methodology Major findings and discussions Contributions & Limitations

Page 3: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

IntroductionIntroduction

Motivation of the study

Need for the study

Orientation of the study

Page 4: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

IntroductionIntroduction

1. Motivation

Vocabulary plays a central role in L2 learning and teaching, however, L2 teachers are often unsure about how best to incorporate L2 vocabulary into their daily teaching.

pedagogical requirements for efficient L2 teaching

Pedagogical vexation results from theoretical inadequacy. (Read,2004). Although there’s been a boom in L2 vocabulary studies since 1990s, the mechanism of L2 lexical learning remains one of the most intriguing puzzles in SLA (Reed, 2004).

theoretical urge for sound understanding of L2 lexical learning Personally, being an L2 teacher and researcher, I have been impelled to do

research on L2 lexical learning. personal experience of L2 lexical learning and teaching

Page 5: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

IntroductionIntroduction

2. Need for the study

Despite increasing interest and efforts in L2 vocabulary in the past 10 years, basic issues remain unsolved. How do L2 learners acquire L2 lexicon?

How do L2 learners acquire new vocabulary via learning tasks?

What factors affect L2 lexical learning in or outside classroom?

How to tract L2 learners’ incremental lexical learning?

Consequently, our knowledge of L2 lexical learning has mainly been built upon fragmental studies and there isn’t an overall theory of how L2 vocabulary is acquired (Schimitt, 1998, Read, 2004).

Crying need to explore L2 lexical learning, theoretically, pedagogically, and methodologically.

Page 6: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

IntroductionIntroduction

3. Orientation of the study

Handicaps hindering the studies up to date :

No consistent or inclusive definition of the basic unit of L2 vocabulary, which makes the research domain a tricky and muddy area to explore.

No solid evidence for an efficient way to enhance L2 learners’ lexical knowledge, in addition to controversies over incidental and intentional L2 approaches.

Task-based L2 lexical learning seems to be an optimal area to investigate L2 lexical learning. Nevertheless, there is far from sufficient understanding of task-based L2 lexical learning according to the literature to date.

Lopsided focus of present-day research on L2 lexical vocabulary learning.

Inadequate support, either theoretically or empirically, for the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001), the newly-born theoretical construct targeting at L2 lexical learning.

Besides word-based factors, few studies explored learner-related factors

Page 7: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Literature reviewLiterature review

Key terms

Theoretical framework

Previous empirical findings

Page 8: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Literature reviewLiterature review

Key terms

---To get rid of problems of ‘word’ and ‘word familiar’, the present study adopted lexical unit (LU) as the basic unit of L2 vocabulary covering single words and multi-word chunks and idioms.

Page 9: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Literature reviewLiterature review

Theoretical framework

Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985,1989) Output Hypothesis (Swain,1985, 1995) Nation’s (2001) construct of L2 lexical knowledge

3 aspects: form, meaning, usage

2 levels: receptive & productive Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )

---the latest and sole theoretical construct

---targeting at L2 lexical learning.

Page 10: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

What is involved in knowing a word

Form Spoken R What does the word sound like? P How is the word pronounced? Written R What does the word look like? P How is the word written and spelled? word parts R What parts are recognizable in this word? P How word parts are needed to express the meaning? Meaning Form & meaning R What meaning does this word form signal? P What word form can be used to express this meaning? Concept & referents R What is included in the concept? P What items can the concept refer to? Associations R What other words does the word occur? P What other words could we use instead of this one? Use Grammatical functions R In what patterns does the word occur? P In what patterns must we use this word? Collocations R What words or types of words occur with this one? P What words or types of words must we use with this one? Constraints on use R Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet this word? P Where, when, and how often can we use this word?

Page 11: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Its basic contention :

--- The retention of unfamiliar words is, generally, conditional upon the degree of involvement in processing these words.

Involvement Load HypothesisInvolvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )

Page 12: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Its 3 assumptions : Retention of words, when processed incidentally, is

conditional upon the following factors in a task: need, search and evaluation.

Other factors being equal, words which are processed with higher involvement load will be retained better than words which are processed with lower involvement load.

Other factors being equal, teacher/researcher-designed tasks with higher involvement load will be more effective for vocabulary retention than tasks with a lower involvement load.

Task-induced involvement does not have much to do with whether it is an input or output task.

Involvement Load HypothesisInvolvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )

Page 13: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Motivational-cognitive construct of involvement: need, search & evaluation.

L2 lexical learning is conditional upon task-induced involvement.

The higher involvement, the better acquisition and longer retention of

unknown words.

Involvement Load HypothesisInvolvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )

Page 14: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Literature reviewLiterature review

Empirical findings

Majority: looking for evidence for task-based L2 lexical learning A few: on effects of task type. Few: on effects of task frequency, word and learner factors

indicating: task type, task frequency, word and text factors as well as learner factors affect L2 lexical learning

Reading-based complex tasks : the most facilitative for L2 lexical learning.

Involvement Load Hypothesis: only partially supported.

1) Motivational-cognitive construct : problematic. 2) Involvement Load Hypothesis : needs further rectification.

Page 15: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

MethodologyMethodology

Based on previous studies, an experimental

study of task-based L2 lexical learning was

designed and conducted.

Page 16: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

MethodologyMethodology

Research Questions

How do Chinese EFL learners acquire L2 vocabulary through learning tasks?

1. Effects of task type on L2 lexical learning?- Overall effects - Modify effects - Role of task-induced involvement

2. Effects of task frequency on L2 lexical learning? - Overall effects - Modified effects - Optimal task frequency

3. Effects of lexical presentation on L2 lexical learning? - Overall effects - Modified effects - Most or least acquired LUs? Why?

Page 17: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

TASK-BASED FACTORS Task type

Task frequency

Lexical presentation……

LEARNER-BASED FACTORS

English proficiency

Prior lexical knowledge……

Task-basedL2 Lexical learning

Read silently + comprehensionRead aloud + comprehensionRead silently + reproductionRead aloud + reproduction

First exposureSecond exposureThird exposure

Lexical formationContextual elaboration

Design

Pretest-posttest experimental design

Notes: refers to the effects of independent variable on dependent variable

refers to the effects of moderator variable on dependent variable

Page 18: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

MethodologyMethodology

Subjects

4 EGs: 119 English majors (EG 1/2/3: 30; EG 4: 29)

Homogenous in age, learning background, motivation.

Pretests: No significant differences between 4 EGs in 1. English proficiency

2. vocabulary size, and

3. baseline knowledge of target LUs.

Page 19: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

MethodologyMethodology

Material

A treatment text

Length: 411 words

No of target LUs: 21

Coverage of known LU: 95%

Page 20: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

MethodologyMethodology

Instruments

Pretest Experiment Posttest4 weeks before 1 afternoon After the experiment

1. TEM-4

2. V size test

3. Spelling test of target LUs

4 tasks

EG1: (RS+C) ×3

EG2: (RA+C) ×3

EG3: (RS+R) ×3

EG4: (RA+R) ×3

1.V acquisition test×3

2. Spelling test of

target LUs

3. Interviews

Page 21: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Data collection and analysisData collection and analysis

Data collection: in a language lab

Data analysis:

1. Revised 9-scale scoring of VKS (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996: 5-scale scoring)

2. Statistic software: SPSS

MethodologyMethodology

Page 22: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

III. III. VKS & its 5-point scoringVKS & its 5-point scoring

VKS elicitation scale (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996)

Self-report categories

I. I don’t remember having seen this word just now. II. I have seen this word just now, but I don’t know what it means. III. I have seen this word just now, and I think it means____________

(synonym or translation). IV. I know this word. It means _______________ (synonym or translation). V. I can use this word in a sentence: _____________________________ ( If you do this section, please do section VI).

Page 23: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

VKS Scoring VKS Scoring (Wesche & Paribakht, 1993),(Wesche & Paribakht, 1993),

Self-report possible

Categories scores Meaning of scores I. 1 This word is not familiar at all. II. 2 The word is familiar but the meaning is not

known. III. 3 A correct synonym or translation is given. IV. 4 The word is used with semantic appropriate

in a sentence. V. 5 The word is used with semantic appropriateness

and grammatical accuracy in sentence

Page 24: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

A 9-point scoring of VKSA 9-point scoring of VKS

stage scoring scheme

F 1 0 Not familiar at all

2 1 Familiar with the form + no /wrong meaning is given

3 1.5 Familiar with the form + no /wrong meaning + copy of the original sentence

M 4 2 Similar sense

5 2.5 Similar sense + original /creative sentence

6 3 Right sense

7 3-0.5 Right sense + grammatical error in semantic presentation

U 8 4 Right sense + copy of the original sentence/creative sentence with grammatical error

9 5 Right sense + correct creative sentence

Page 25: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Major findings & discussionsMajor findings & discussions

Effects of task type

Effects of task frequency

Effects of lexical presentations

Page 26: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Effects of task typeEffects of task typeFindings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Conclusions 1. The facilitative power of each task varied significantly from one another.2. RS+R was the most facilitative and RA+R was the least helpful. Task type significantly affects L2 lexical learning.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

RS+C RA+C RS+R RA+R

PretestPostt1Postt1-3mean

Page 27: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Modified effects of task typeModified effects of task type

Learning outcomes Learning outcomes after the 1st exposureafter the 1st exposure

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Conclusion

Englishproficiency Level

Subgroups N Mean SD

Mini Max

Between-subgroup (Kruskal-Wallis)

Chi-square Asymp.Sig.

HL EG1(RS+C) 10 41.10 9.60 29.50 59.50

1.303 .728

EG2(RA+C) 10 45.10 7.16 34.50 56.00

EG3(RS+R) 10 45.25 16.28 24.00 71.00

EG4(RA+R) 10 40.70 9.54 29.00 54.50

Total 40 43.04 10.95 24.00 71.00

ML EG1(RS+C) 10 30.50 5.88 18.00 36.50

16.390 .001

EG2(RA+C) 10 43.90 9.28 27.50 59.50

EG3(RS+R) 10 47.85 10.15 31.00 65.50

EG4(RA+R) 9 37.45 9.32 22.00 50.50

Total 39 39.92 10.78 18.00 65.50

LL EG1(RS+C) 10 28.45 6.01 19.00 36.50

9.760 .021

EG2(RA+C) 10 37.85 6.30 28.50 51.00

EG3(RS+R) 10 39.95 10.15 26.00 60.00

EG4(RA+R) 10 36.50 4.45 30.00 46.00

Total 40 35.67 8.15 19.00 60.00

Page 28: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Modified effects of task typeModified effects of task typeAverage learning outcomes Average learning outcomes after 3 exposuresafter 3 exposures

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Englishproficiency Level

Subgroups N Mean SD

Mini Max

Between-subgroup (Kruskal-Wallis)

Chi-square Asymp.Sig.

HL EG1(RS+C) 10 54.10 9.25 36.83 70.67

.579 .901

EG2(RA+C) 10 55.23 16.20 25.83 75.50

EG3(RS+R) 10 57.25 8.41 42.83 68.83

EG4(RA+R) 10 55.01 8.44 42.17 66.83

Total 40 55.39 10.69 25.83 75.50

ML EG1(RS+C) 10 37.63 7.99 26.00 46.83

19.023 .000

EG2(RA+C) 10 54.30 10.36 39.50 72.17

EG3(RS+R) 10 61.46 9.27 43.67 75.67

EG4(RA+R) 9 45.94 8.84 33.67 58.17

Total 39 49.94 12.69 26.00 75.67

LL EG1(RS+C) 10 37.16 9.39 22.50 48.83

4.768 .190

EG2(RA+C) 10 46.16 10.30 38.00 67.67

EG3(RS+R) 10 49.18 12.81 34.00 73.00

EG4(RA+R) 10 42.91 6.68 34.67 53.67

Total 40 43.85 10.65 22.50 73.00

Page 29: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Modified effects of task typeModified effects of task type

To conclude, the overall effects of task type were generally To conclude, the overall effects of task type were generally modified by English proficiency in the 4 EGs’ lexical learning. modified by English proficiency in the 4 EGs’ lexical learning.

To be specific, To be specific, HLHL : achieved similar lexical progress, regardless of the significant different : achieved similar lexical progress, regardless of the significant different effects of task type; effects of task type;

MLML : abided by the effects of task type to the letter; and : abided by the effects of task type to the letter; and

LLLL : being unable to make full use of the effects of task type, keeping their : being unable to make full use of the effects of task type, keeping their lexical learning at a similar low rate.lexical learning at a similar low rate.

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Page 30: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Effects of task typeEffects of task type

2. Modified effects

Each EG: 3 subgroups according to their English proficiency (HL, ML, LL).

Significant correlations between English proficiency and L2 lexical learning

outcomes. ( 1st: r=.352***; Average 1-3: r=.456***)

Overall effects of task type :

---- totally rejected by HL,

----strictly followed by ML

---- abided by at the first trial and refuted at the later trials by LL.

ConclusionOverall effects of task type were generally modified by English proficiency.

.

Conclusion:

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Page 31: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Role of task-induced involvementRole of task-induced involvement

Involvement loads of the 4 tasks according to motivational-cognitive Involvement loads of the 4 tasks according to motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement (Laufer & Hulstijn,2001)construct of task-induced involvement (Laufer & Hulstijn,2001)

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Prediction: No significant differences between EG1 and EG2 / between EG1 and EG2

Significant differences between EG(1+2) and EG(3+4)

Subjects Tasks Involvement load Involvement Index

Rank orderof learning outcomes

Need Search Evaluation

EG1 RS+C + + _ 2 4th

EG2 RA+C + + _ 2 2nd

EG3 RS+R + + ++ 4 1st

EG4 RA+R + + ++ 4 3rd

Page 32: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Role of task-induced involvementRole of task-induced involvement

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Predicted rank order of learning outcomes Actual rank order of learning outcomes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

RS+C RA+C RS+R RA+R

Lexi cal gai ns i nvol vement

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

RS+C RA+C RS+R RA+R

Lexi cal gai ns i nvol vement

Page 33: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Effects of task typeEffects of task type

3. Roles of task-induced involvement

Motivational-cognitive construct of involvement :

theoretically invalid task-based construct

Involvement Load Hypothesis : partially supported.

Optimal involvement Load Hypothesis

1) Tasks vary in their involvement: under-involving, optimal, and over-involving

2) Productive tasks are usually more involving than receptive ones.

3) Tasks with balanced integration of input and output are endowed with optimal involvement, resulting best learning outcomes.

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Page 34: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Findings & discussionsFindings & discussions

1. Which task most facilitates L2VA?

RS+R >/≈RA+C > RA+R > RS+C

1. Both input and output are essential to L2VA.

2. Neither mere input nor overproduction facilitates high gains in L2VA.

3. Optimal involvement is required for L2VA.

Optimal involved Over- involved Under-involved

Page 35: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Role of task-induced involvementRole of task-induced involvementFindings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Indications

1. Involvement load Hypothesis: partially supported, partially rejected.

2. Motivation-cognitive construct: problematic

equal value for need, search, evaluation

exclusion of input-output dimension

Results of Independent Samples T-Tests

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

EG1-EG2 .001 .974 -4.02 58 .000

EG3-EG4 6.16 .016 2.19 57 .032

EG ( 1+2 ) - EG ( 3+4) 1.46 .22 -1.87 117 .063

Page 36: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

Subjects Tasks Involvement load Involvement Index

Need Search Evaluation

EG1 RS+C +n ++s +e 4

EG2 RA+C +n + ++ + +s +e 7

EG3 RS+R +n + + + + +s ++e 8

EG4 RA+R +n + ++ + + + +s ++e 10

Task-based construct of involvement Motivational-cognitive Input-output

Page 37: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Effects of task frequencyEffects of task frequency

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

1. Overall effects Task frequency significantly affected the 4 EGs’ lexical learning and the

third trial led to the most progress.

Task frequency had the power to reduce involvement load and the gaps caused by the effects of task type, but the modifying effects can not override the effects of task type

Task frequency interacted with task type.

Page 38: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Effects of task frequencyEffects of task frequency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

RS+CRS+RRA+RRA+C

Page 39: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Effects of task frequencyEffects of task frequency

Page 40: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts in regards to HL, ML and LL’s lexical learning outcomes after each exposure

Subgroup

SourceTask frequency

Type III Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

HL Task frequency

Run 1 vs. Run 2

7581.76 17581.76

118.09

.000

Run 2 vs. Run 3

5017.60 15017.60

104.65

.000

ML Task frequency

Run 1 vs. Run 2

4995.22 14995.22

146.28

.000

Run 2 vs. Run 3

2480.62 12480.62

52.14 .000

LL Task frequency

Run 1 vs. Run 2

2600.15 12600.15

33.59 .000

Run 2 vs. Run 3

1939.05 11939.05

50.57 .000

Page 41: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Modified effects of task frequencyModified effects of task frequency

01020304050607080

HLMLLL

Page 42: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

BSL Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

RS+R RA+C

RS+C RA+R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

BSL Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

RS+R RA+C

RS+C RA+R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BSL Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

RS+R RA+C

RS+C RA+R

HL

ML

LL

Page 43: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Effects of task frequencyEffects of task frequency

Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions

2. Modified effects HL: no variation between subgroups: fully enjoying the overall effects

ML: variations enlarged at the 2nd trial but narrowed at the third trial.

LL: variations revealed at the 2nd trial but vanished at the third trial.

3. Optimal task frequency The 3rd exposure.

Page 44: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Effects of lexical presentationEffects of lexical presentationFindings &discussionsFindings &discussions

1. Overall effects Lexical formation and contextual elaborations significantly affected

4 EGs’ lexical learning. 1) Multi-word LUs were better learnt than single-word LUs. 2) Both implicit and explicit elaborated LUs were better learned than no elaborated ones.

Lexical formation and contextual elaborations not only interwove with each other, but also interrelated with, or controlled by learners’

prior lexical knowledge

Page 45: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Effects of lexical presentationEffects of lexical presentationFindings &discussionsFindings &discussions

2. Modified effects HL had the greatest achievements than ML and LL in the 2 types

of presented LUs.

HL and ML achieved more gains in implicitly elaborated LUs, whereas LL had more progress in explicitly elaborated LU.

3. Most and least acquired LUs

Familiarity with the LU form and implicit/explicit elaborations led to the most acquired LUs, and vice versa.

Ignorance of word parts, high density of target LUs and mutual antonyms of LUs also lead to least acquired LUs.

Page 46: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

1.1. ContributionsContributionsTheoreticalTheoretical Modifying the motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement Modifying the motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement

and Involvement Load Hypothesisand Involvement Load Hypothesis Clarifying the role of input and output in task-based L2 lexical learning. Clarifying the role of input and output in task-based L2 lexical learning. Revealing the Revealing the complexity of task-based L2 lexical learning.L2 lexical learning.

MethodologicalMethodological Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in L2 lexical Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in L2 lexical

research.research. Devising more valid scoring of VKSDevising more valid scoring of VKS

PedagogicallyPedagogically Applying the effects of task type, task frequency, word and text Applying the effects of task type, task frequency, word and text

factors as well as learner factors in L2 lexical teaching.factors as well as learner factors in L2 lexical teaching.

Contributions & limitationsContributions & limitations

Page 47: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Task-based L2 learning

Task type

Task frequency

Learner factors English proficiencyPrior lexical knowledge

Lexical presentation formation elaboration

Page 48: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

2. Limitations2. LimitationsThree trials of tasks may not enough for the effects of task Three trials of tasks may not enough for the effects of task frequency.frequency.

The effects of vocabulary acquisition tests should be teased The effects of vocabulary acquisition tests should be teased out from the effects of task frequency.out from the effects of task frequency.

Contributions & limitationsContributions & limitations

Page 49: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Questions and suggestions!

Page 50: An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Thanks You!