The current study investigated the effects of three forms of output activity on EFL learners’ recognition and recall of second language (L2) vocabulary. To this end, three groups of learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) were instructed to employ the following three output activities after reading two narrative texts: (1) summarizing the texts and incorporating target vocabulary in the summary; (2) generating several general comprehension questions out of reading texts and answering those questions while incorporating target vocabulary; and (3) making predictions about what is to occur in the texts and including target vocabulary in the prediction. The results of a cued response production test and a multiple choice recognition test indicated that the three treatment conditions resulted in significant development of vocabulary knowledge. Moreover, the results revealed that making predictions and questioning/answering were more effective than summarizing for promoting L2 words knowledge.
BarcroftJ. (2009). Strategies and performance in intentional L2 vocabulary learning. Language Awareness, 18, 74–89.
2.
BarnettM.A. (1988a). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 150–162.
3.
BarnettM.A. (1988b). Teaching reading strategies: How methodology affects language course articulation. Foreign Language Annals, 21, 109–119.
4.
CanfieldJ.HansenM.V.UnkovichA. (2007). Chicken soup for the soul in the classroom. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
5.
CraikF.I.LockhartR.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11, 671–684.
6.
CraikF.I.TulvingE. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
7.
de la FuenteM.J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.
8.
EckerthJ.TavakoliP. (2012). The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research, 16, 227–252.
9.
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.
10.
FolseK.S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 273–293.
11.
HarrisV.SnowS. (2004). Doing it for themselves: Focus on learning strategies and vocabulary building. London: CILT, the National Centre for Languages.
12.
HuckinT.CoadyJ. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 181–193.
13.
HulstijnJ.H.LauferB. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
14.
JoeA. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition?Applied linguistics, 19, 357–377.
15.
KeatingG.D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12, 365–386.
16.
KimY. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 285–325.
17.
KrashenS. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.
18.
KusiakM. (2001). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on reading comprehension and metacognitive knowledge. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 255–274.
19.
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.
20.
LauferB. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on formS in second-language vocabulary learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 149–166.
21.
LauferB.HulstijnJ. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
22.
LauferB.Rozovski-RoitblatB. (2015). Retention of new words: Quantity of encounters, quality of task, and degree of knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 19, 687–711.
23.
LeeJ.F.VanPattenB. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. 2nd edition.New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
LockhartR.S.CraikF.I. (1990). Levels of processing: a retrospective commentary on a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 44, 87–112.
25.
LuM. (2013). Effects of four vocabulary exercises on facilitating learning vocabulary meaning, form, and use. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 167–176.
26.
MasonB.KrashenS. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25, 91–102.
27.
MiltonJ. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
28.
MinH.T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58, 73–115.
29.
NassajiH.TianJ. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 397–419.
30.
NationI.S.WebbS.A. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinel.
31.
NunanD. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
32.
ParibakhtT.S.WescheM. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary development. In: CoadyJ.HuckinT. (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
PichetteF.de SerresL.LafontaineM. (2012). Sentence reading and writing for second language vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33, 66–82.
34.
PulidoD. (2007). The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental vocabulary acquisition: A matter of topic familiarity?Language Learning, 57, 155–199.
35.
ReutzelD.SmithJ.A.FawsonP.C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 276–305.
36.
SnowC. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. CA: Rand Corporation.
37.
SpörerN.J.C.BrunsteinKieschkeU. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19, 272–286.
38.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press
39.
SwainM. (2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In: HinkelE. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
VanPattenB. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
41.
WebbS. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
42.
WebbS. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28, 46–65.
