Examining the effects of oral reproduction and summary writing vocabulary tasks on L2 word learning: Technique feature analysis on trial

Figures & data

Table 1. Task-induced involvement load (adapted from Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, p. 18)

Tasks	Status of target words	Need	Search	Evaluation
1. Reading and comprehension questions	Glossed in text but irrelevant to task	−	−	−
2. Reading and comprehension questions	Glossed in text and relevant to task	+		−
3. Reading and comprehension questions	Not glossed but relevant to task	+	+	−/+ (depending on word and context)
4. Reading and comprehension questions and filling gaps	Relevant to reading comprehension. Listed with glosses at the end of text.	+	−	+
5. Writing original sentences	Listed with glosses	+	−	+ +
6. Writing a composition	Concepts selected by the teacher (and provided in L1). The L2 learner-writer must look up the L2 form	+	+	+ +
7. Writing a composition	Concepts selected (and looked up) by L2 learner-writer	+ +	+	+ +

Table 2. A checklist for technique feature analysis (adapted from Nation & Webb, 2011, p. 7)

Criteria	Scores
Motivation
Is there a clear vocabulary learning goal?	0 1
Does the activity motivate learning?	0 1
Do the learners select the words?	0 1
Noticing
Does the activity focus attention on the target words?	0 1
Does the activity raise awareness of new vocabulary learning?	0 1
Does the activity involve negotiation?	0 1
Retrieval
Does the activity involve retrieval of the word?	0 1
Is it productive retrieval?	0 1
Is it recall?	0 1
Are there multiple retrievals of each word?	0 1
Is there spacing between retrievals?	0 1
Generation
Does the activity involve generative use?	0 1
Is it productive?	0 1
Is there a marked change that involves the use of other words?	0 1
Retention
Does the activity ensure successful linking of form and meaning?	0 1
Does the activity involve instantiation?	0 1
Does the activity involve imaging?	0 1
Does the activity avoid interference?	0 1
Maximum score	18

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for learners’ scores on OPT

	N	Mean	Std. deviation
Statistic	66	52.06	1.508

Table 4. Levels of CEFR

Division	Level	Level name
Proficient user	C2	Mastery
	C1	Effective Operational Proficiency
Independent user	B2	Vantage
	B1	Threshold
Basic user	A2	Breakthrough
	A1	Waystage

Figure 1. Design of the study.

Table 5. Target lexical items

Verbs	Nouns	Adjectives
Proliferate acquiesce	Cardiologist exodus	Oblivious viable
Outperform usurp	Maelstrom crisis	Unprecedented
Advocate stereotype	Funeral struggle	Equitable alienated
Feminize deprive	Manifesto literacy	Inevitable anecdotal
Segregate retreat	Demographer sojourn	Simultaneous
Embark on gauge	Adjustment sabbatical	Tangible vital
Capsize suffocate	Futility
Subside regret teem

Table 6. Word count, Flesch Reading Ease Readability, and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level Readability of the passages

Passages	Passage 1	Passage 2	Passage 3	Passage 4	Passage 5	Passage 6	Passage 7	Passage 8
	730	859	946	780	851	952	880	888
Flesch Reading Ease Readability	47.8	40.2	37.9	67.2	58.4	47.7	64.3	42.2
Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level Readability	11.0	12.0	12.0	8.2	9.4	10.3	9.1	12.0

Table 7. Technique feature analysis of oral reproduction and summary writing vocabulary tasks

Criteria	OR	SW
	Score
Is there a clear vocabulary learning goal?	0	0
Does the activity motivate learning?	1	1
Do the learners select the words?	1	1
Does the activity focus attention on the target words?	1	1
Does the activity raise awareness of new vocabulary learning?	1	1
Does the activity involve negotiation?	0	0
Does the activity involve retrieval of the word?	1	1
Is it productive retrieval?	1	1
Is it recall?	1	1
Are there multiple retrievals of each word?	0	0
Is there spacing between retrievals?	0	0
Does the activity involve generative use?	1	1
Is it productive?	1	1
Is there a marked change that involves the use of other words?	0	0
Does the activity ensure successful linking of form and meaning?	1	1
Does the activity involve instantiation?	0	0
Does the activity involve imaging?	0	0
Does the activity avoid interference?	1	1
Total score	11	11

Table 8. Descriptive statistics for learners’ scores on MCAR tests

	Immediate post-test			Delayed post-test
	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Mean	Std. deviation
Summary writing	22	34	2.1	30	2.2
Oral reproduction	22	36	1.6	34	1.8
Reading only	22	20	2.4	15	1.8

Table 9. Descriptive statistics for learners’ scores on CRAR tests

	Immediate post-test			Delayed post-test
	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Mean	Std. deviation
Summary writing	22	32	2.5	26	2.2
Oral reproduction	22	34	1.5	30	1.6
Reading only	22	15	2.2	10	1.8

Table 10. Inferential statistics for learners’ scores on MCAR vocabulary tests

	Conditions		Mean difference	F(2,63)	ŋ^2
Recognition post-test	SW	RO	14*	378.90	0.92
	OR	RO	16*
	OR	SW	2*
Recognition delayed post-test	SW	RO	15*	551.83	0.94
	OR	RO	19*
	OR	SW	4*

Note: *p<.05.

Table 11. Inferential statistics for learners’ scores on CRAR vocabulary tests

	Conditions		Mean difference	F(2,63)	ŋ^2
Active recall post-test	SW	RO	17*	517.37	0.94
	OR	RO	19*
	OR	SW	2*
Active recall delayed post-test	SW	RO	16*	646.80	0.95
	OR	RO	20*
	OR	SW	4*

Note: *p<.05.

Table

Table

Table

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nation, P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Heinle.

 Google Scholar