Vocabulary Learning And Retention: Cognitive Load Framework On Trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi33.26660Keywords:
cognitive load framework, EFL learning, involvement load hypothesis, vocabulary learning, vocabulary retentionAbstract
The literature has witnessed a large number of studies investigating the merits and effectiveness of the available methods of vocabulary teaching and learning in different EFL/ESL contexts among which one can refer to the involvement load hypothesis (ILH). Despite its widespread use, some criticisms have been levelled against this model. A new framework, namely cognitive load framework (CLF), has recently been proposed. Although CLF has been validated by some TESL experts, it has not, yet, been put to the acidity test. Therefore, the present quasi-experimental study was carried out to determine whether activities with higher cognitive load degrees as predicted by CLF framework are more effective for vocabulary learning and retention. To this end, a sample of 60 Iranian EFL learners was assigned to three experimental groups and was exposed to vocabulary learning tasks with different cognitive load indices for eight weeks. Experimental group 1 received the tasks with high cognitive load, while experimental groups 2 and 3 received the medium and low cognitive load tasks, respectively. The findings revealed that the vocabulary tasks with the highest cognitive load were the most effective, and those with the lowest load were the least effective in vocabulary learning and retention.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test 2. Oxford University Press.
Cho, Y. A., & Ma, J. H. (2013). The effects of task-induced involvement and word exposure frequency on L2 college students’ vocabulary acquisition. Studies in English Language & Literature, 38(1), 339-367.
Craik, F. M. I. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Craik, F. M. I. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10(4), 268-294.
Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and modified output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.
Haratmeh, M. S. (2012). Involvement load and task type in task effectiveness: two aspects of vocabulary knowledge. International Journal of Academic Research, 4(4), 86-95.
Huang, S., Eslami, Z.R. & Willson, V. L. (2012). The effects of task involvement load on L2 incidental vocabulary learning: a meta-analytic study. Modern Language Journal 96(4), 544-557.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. J. Arnaud & H. B’joint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics, (113-125). Macmillan.
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327-339.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558.
Keating, G. D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 365-386.
Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58(2), 285-325.
Kim, Y. (2011). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2. Language Learning, 61(1), 100-140.
Krashen, S. (2008). Language education: Past, present and future. RELC Journal, 39, 178–87.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.
Laufer, B., & Rozovski-roitblat,B. (2011). Incidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task type, word occurrence and their combination. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 391-411.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Mármol, G. A., & Sánchez-Lafuente, Á. A. (2013). The Involvement Load Hypothesis: Its effect on vocabulary learning in primary education. Revista Española De Lingüística Aplicada, 26, 11-24.
Martínez-Fernández, A. (2008). Revisiting the involvement load hypothesis: Awareness, type of task and type of item. In Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum (pp. 210-228). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Nassaji, H., & Hu, H. C. M. (2012). The relationship between task-induced involvement load and learning new words from context. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50(1), 69-86.
Nation, P. & Newton, J. (1997). Teaching vocabulary. In J. Coady and T. Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.
Nation, P. & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Heinle Cengage Learning.
Peters, E. (2012). The differential effects of two vocabulary instruction methods on EFL word learning: a study into task effectiveness. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50(3), 213-238.
Peters, E., Hulstijn, J.H., Sercu, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning, 59, 113–51.
Pellicer-Sánchez, A. & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do Things fall apart? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 31–55.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Sarani, A., Negari, G. M., & Ghaviniat, M. (2013). The role of task type in L2 vocabulary acquisition: a case of Involvement Load Hypothesis. Language and Culture, 35(4), 377-386.
Saslow, J.M. & Ascher, A. (2011). Top notch. Pearson Education ESL.
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Teng, F. (2015). Involvement load in translation tasks and EFL vocabulary learning. The New English Teacher, 9(1), 83-101.
Xudong, W. U. (2010). Can learning tasks affect incidental vocabulary acquisition? involvement load hypothesis revisited. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 42 (2), 109-116.
Yaqubi, B., Rayati, R. A., & Allemzade, N. (2012). The involvement load hypothesis and vocabulary learning: The effect of task types and involvement index on L2 vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 29(1), 145-163.
Zarifi, A. (2013). Establishing and evaluating phrasal verb use in a Malaysian ESL secondary school textbook (Doctoral dissertation). Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang.
Zarifi, A., Jayakaran, M., & O’Dowd, E. (2020). Cognitive Load Framework: an alternative to the Involvement Load Hypothesis. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (in Press).
Zou, D. (2012). A study of the components of the involvement load hypothesis: How involvement load should be allocated to” Search” and” Evaluation” (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Cho, Y. A., & Ma, J. H. (2013). The effects of task-induced involvement and word exposure frequency on L2 college students’ vocabulary acquisition. Studies in English Language & Literature, 38(1), 339-367.
Craik, F. M. I. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Craik, F. M. I. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10(4), 268-294.
Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and modified output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.
Haratmeh, M. S. (2012). Involvement load and task type in task effectiveness: two aspects of vocabulary knowledge. International Journal of Academic Research, 4(4), 86-95.
Huang, S., Eslami, Z.R. & Willson, V. L. (2012). The effects of task involvement load on L2 incidental vocabulary learning: a meta-analytic study. Modern Language Journal 96(4), 544-557.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. J. Arnaud & H. B’joint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics, (113-125). Macmillan.
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327-339.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558.
Keating, G. D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 365-386.
Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58(2), 285-325.
Kim, Y. (2011). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2. Language Learning, 61(1), 100-140.
Krashen, S. (2008). Language education: Past, present and future. RELC Journal, 39, 178–87.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.
Laufer, B., & Rozovski-roitblat,B. (2011). Incidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task type, word occurrence and their combination. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 391-411.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Mármol, G. A., & Sánchez-Lafuente, Á. A. (2013). The Involvement Load Hypothesis: Its effect on vocabulary learning in primary education. Revista Española De Lingüística Aplicada, 26, 11-24.
Martínez-Fernández, A. (2008). Revisiting the involvement load hypothesis: Awareness, type of task and type of item. In Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum (pp. 210-228). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Nassaji, H., & Hu, H. C. M. (2012). The relationship between task-induced involvement load and learning new words from context. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50(1), 69-86.
Nation, P. & Newton, J. (1997). Teaching vocabulary. In J. Coady and T. Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.
Nation, P. & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Heinle Cengage Learning.
Peters, E. (2012). The differential effects of two vocabulary instruction methods on EFL word learning: a study into task effectiveness. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50(3), 213-238.
Peters, E., Hulstijn, J.H., Sercu, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning, 59, 113–51.
Pellicer-Sánchez, A. & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do Things fall apart? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 31–55.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Sarani, A., Negari, G. M., & Ghaviniat, M. (2013). The role of task type in L2 vocabulary acquisition: a case of Involvement Load Hypothesis. Language and Culture, 35(4), 377-386.
Saslow, J.M. & Ascher, A. (2011). Top notch. Pearson Education ESL.
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Teng, F. (2015). Involvement load in translation tasks and EFL vocabulary learning. The New English Teacher, 9(1), 83-101.
Xudong, W. U. (2010). Can learning tasks affect incidental vocabulary acquisition? involvement load hypothesis revisited. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 42 (2), 109-116.
Yaqubi, B., Rayati, R. A., & Allemzade, N. (2012). The involvement load hypothesis and vocabulary learning: The effect of task types and involvement index on L2 vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 29(1), 145-163.
Zarifi, A. (2013). Establishing and evaluating phrasal verb use in a Malaysian ESL secondary school textbook (Doctoral dissertation). Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang.
Zarifi, A., Jayakaran, M., & O’Dowd, E. (2020). Cognitive Load Framework: an alternative to the Involvement Load Hypothesis. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (in Press).
Zou, D. (2012). A study of the components of the involvement load hypothesis: How involvement load should be allocated to” Search” and” Evaluation” (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Downloads
Published
2020-01-31
How to Cite
Zarifi, A. ., & Azizinezhad, Z. (2020). Vocabulary Learning And Retention: Cognitive Load Framework On Trial. Porta Linguarum An International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, (33), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi33.26660
Issue
Section
Articles
License
The authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- The authors retain copyright and guarantee to the journal the right to be the first to publish the work as well as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the authorship of the work and the initial publication in this journal.
- Authors may separately enter into additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (e.g., placing it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their own website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
