This study investigates the roles of collaborative output, the modality of output, and word engagement in vocabulary learning and retention by Chinese-speaking undergraduate EFL learners. The two treatment groups reconstructed a passage that they had read in one of two ways: (1) dyadic oral interaction while producing a written report (Written Output); (2) dyadic oral interaction followed by an oral report (Oral Output). A control group completed a reading comprehension task (Reading) based on the same passage. Four posttests revealed that Oral Output led to significantly better productive and receptive lexical learning than Reading all the way to the last posttest. Written Output led to significantly better productive and receptive lexical learning than Reading on posttest 2, but not on posttests 3 and 4. However, the difference in lexical learning between the Written and Oral Output conditions did not achieve significance. Interaction analysis found that the Oral and Written Output groups differed in the types of word processing they favoured as well as in the frequency of their word engagement. The article discusses the reasons why collaborative output facilitates lexical learning; considers the association between the Output performers’ word engagement and lexical retention; and suggests what might have contributed to the better success of the Oral Output group in their lexical retention.
AtkinsonR.C.SchiffrinR.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In SpenceK.W.SpenceJ.T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.
2.
BaddeleyA. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
BaddeleyA.GathercoleS.PapagnoC. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.
4.
BarcroftJ. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52, 323–363.
5.
BarcroftJ.RottS. (2010). Partial word form learning in the written mode in L2 German and Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 31, 623–650.
6.
BorerL. (2005). Speaking to the self and to others: The role of social and private speech in the retention of second language vocabulary by adult academic learners. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
7.
BorerL. (2007). Depth of processing in private and social speech: Its role in the retention of word knowledge by adult EAP learners. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 273–299.
8.
BrowneC.M. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition through reading, writing, and tasks: A comparison. Unpublished EdD dissertation, Temple University, PA, USA.
9.
ChikamatsuN. (1996). The effects of L1 orthography on L2 word recognition: A study of American and Chinese learners of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 403–432.
10.
CraikF.I.M.LockhartR.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–684.
11.
de la FuenteM.J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.
12.
de la FuenteM.J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer-assisted Language Learning, 16, 47–81.
13.
DeKeyserR. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.
14.
DeKeyserR. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151). New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DeKeyserR.SokalskiK.J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practices. Language Learning, 46, 613–642.
16.
EllisR. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied Linguistics, 16, 409–441.
17.
EllisR.HeX. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.
18.
GassS. (1997). Input, interaction, and second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
GassS.MackeyA. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
HaastrupK. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures or talking about words. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
21.
HirshD.NationP. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure?Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689–696.
22.
HulstijnJ.LauferB. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
23.
HulstijnJ.TrompetterP. (1998). Incidental learning of second language vocabulary in computer-assisted reading and writing tasks. In AlbrechtsenD.HenriksenB.MeesI.M.PoulsenE. (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign and second language pedagogy (pp. 191–200). Odense: Odense University Press.
24.
IzumiS. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.
25.
JiangN. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 47–77.
26.
JoeA. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition?Applied Linguistics, 19, 357–377.
27.
KatzL.FrostR. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, SR111/112, 147–160. New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.
28.
KeatingG.D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12, 365–386.
29.
KimY. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 285–325.
30.
LauferB. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: words you don’t know, words you think you know and words you can’t guess. In CoadyJ.HuckinT. (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 20–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
LauferB. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 567–587.
32.
LauferB.HulstijnJ. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
33.
LawsonM.J.HogbenD. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-language students. Language Learning, 46, 101–135.
34.
LeowR.P. (1997). Attention, awareness and foreign language behaviour. Language Learning, 47, 467–505.
35.
LongM. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.BhatiaT. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36.
McLaughlinB.HerediaR. (1996). Information processing approaches to research on second language acquisition and use. In RitchieW.BahtiaT. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 213–228). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37.
NagyW.E. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning. In SchmittN.McCarthyM. (Eds.), Vocabulary description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 64–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
NationP. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NewtonJ. (1995). Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: A case study. Second Language Research, 11, 159–177.
41.
NiuR. (2008). Effects of collaborative output on Chinese EFL learners’ lexical learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Hong Kong: The University of Kong Hong.
42.
NiuR. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.
43.
ParibakhtT.S.WescheM. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In CoadyJ.HuckinY. (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PerhanZ.Helms-ParkR. (2012). The role of explicit instruction in cross-script cognate recognition: The case of Ukrainian-speaking EAP learners. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of the Association for Language Awareness, Montréal, QC.
45.
ReadJ. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
RottS. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 589–619.
47.
RottS.WilliamsJ.CameronR. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input-output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6, 183–222.
48.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SchmittN. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
50.
SchmittN. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
51.
SinclairJ.CoulthardR. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.
52.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
SternbergR.J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learnt from context. In McKeownM.G.CurtisM.E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54.
SwainM. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
55.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56.
SwainM.LapkinS.KnouziI.SuzukiW.BrooksL. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 5–29.
57.
WebbS. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
58.
WebbS. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28, 46–65.
59.
WescheM.ParibakhtT.S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–39.
60.
WittrockM.C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87–95.
61.
WolffD. (2000). Some reflections on the importance of writing in foreign language learning. In PlayI.SchneiderK.P. (Eds.), Language use, language acquisition and language history (pp. 213–226). Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
62.
ZaharR.CobbT.SpadaN. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of frequency and contextual richness. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 541–572.
