The Impact of Involvement Load on Iranian EFL Learners’ Retention of Idiomatic Expressions

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
R. Bagheri Nevisi 1
R. Mohammad Hosseinpur 1
M. Sarbandi Farahani 2
1 Assistant Professor of English Language Teaching Qom University, Iran
2 M.A in English Language Teaching, Qom University, Iran
Abstract
Capitalizing on Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001) notion of Involvement Load Hypothesis, this study aimed to investigate the impact of task-induced involvement load on Iranian EFL learners’ retention of idiomatic expressions. The main concern of present study is to explore if principles of involvement load hypothesis hold true when applied to learning idioms. The research questions formulated to achieve the objectives include: 1.What is EFL learners’ retention rate of idiomatic expressions for the reading-comprehension task with involvement index 1? 2. What is EFL learners’ retention rate of idiomatic expressions for the fill-in-the blanks task with involvement index 2? 3. What is EFL learners’ retention rate of idiomatic expressions for the composition task with involvement index 3? 4. Does Involvement Load play any significant role in the retention of idioms of Iranian EFL learners? Given the fact that the depth of processing a word is the key component in vocabulary learning, it could be assumed that composition tasks designed to develop idiomatic expressions in EFL learners, enjoy much greater retention rate, hence attesting to the effectiveness of involvement load on the retention of idiomatic expressions. To this end, 60 female upper-intermediate Iranian EFL students in an English language institute in Tehran took part in the study. Twenty idioms were taught to three groups of students through tasks that induced different levels of involvement load, namely reading comprehension, fill in the blanks and composition tasks. To conduct the statistical analysis, fifteen idioms were picked from among the ones presented in the pretest, so that learners’ prior knowledge of some idioms was taken care of. The retention of the chosen idiomatic expressions was then tested via an immediate and a delayed post-test. MANOVA was run to compare the groups’ performance on the three tasks on the posttest and delayed posttest. Scheffe’s test was then used as a post-hoc comparison test to compare the groups on posttest and delayed posttest. The results pointed to a direct relationship between the involvement as induced by the tasks and participants’ retention of idioms, implying the fact that the higher involvement load of a task, the higher the retention of the task will be. Accordingly, the findings indicated that retention rate was the highest in the composition task, lower in the fill in the blanks, and the lowest in the reading comprehension task. The study has implications for task analysis, task instruction, and task design; Curriculum developers may benefit from the findings of this study when engaged in designing courses related to idiomatic expressions. English teachers could be more cognizant of varying involvement indexes in tasks and their effect on the retention rate of their learners. Eventually, language learners will be informed of the optimal amount of time and effort needed for mastering idiomatic expressions.





Keywords

Subjects

• Anderson, M. C., & Spellman, B. A. (1995). “On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case”. Psychological Review, 102(1), Pp. 68-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.68
• Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and Practice. Hove, UK: Psychology pess.
• Bagheri, M. S., &Fazel, I. (2010). “Effects of Etymological Elaboration on the EFL Learners' Comprehension and Retention of Idioms”. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), Pp. 45-55.
• Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). “Levels of processing: A framework for memory research”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(1), Pp. 671-684.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
• Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). “Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory”. Journal of Experimentl Psychology: General, 104(3), Pp. 268-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
• Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). “Motivation: Reopening the research agenda”. Language learning, 41(4), Pp. 469-512. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00690.x
• De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). “Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction”. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), Pp. 263-295.https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr196oa
• Dörnyei, Z. (1994). “Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom”. The modern language journal, 78(3), Pp. 273-284.doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02042.x
• Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. NewYork: Dover. doi: 10.5214/ans.0972.7531.200408
• Ellis , R., & He , X. (1999). “The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), Pp. 285-301.doi:10.5214/ans.0972.7531.200408
• Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). “Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings”. Language Learning , 44(3), Pp. 449-491.DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01114.x
• Evens, S., & Green, C. (2007). “Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary students”. Journal of English For Academic Purposes, 6(1), Pp. 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.11.005
• Eysenck, H. J. (1982). “Incidental learning in orienting tasks”. in R. C. Puff, Handbook of Research Methods In Human Memory and Cognition (Pp. 197-228). NewYork: Academic Press.
• Eysenck, M. W., & Eysenck, M. C. (1979). “Memory scanning, introversion-extraversion, and levels of processing”. Journal of Research in Personality, 13(3), Pp. 305-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(79)90021-7
• Fernández, M. (2007). “Revisiting the involvement load hypothesis:Awareness, type of task and type of item”. Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (Pp. 210-229). Massachusetts: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
• Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning. Chicago. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00690.x
• Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., & Moorcroft, R. (1985). “The role of attitudes and motivation in second language learning: Correlational and experimental considerations”. Language learning, 35(2), Pp. 207-227. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01025.x
• Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1991). “An instrumental motivation in language study”. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(1), Pp. 57-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009724
• Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (2011). Idioms and Phrasal Verbs: Intermediate. Oxford University Press.
• Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). “Some emprical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquistion.” Langugae Learning, 51(3), Pp. 539-558. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00164
• Hu, M. & Nassaji, H. (2012). “The relationship beteen task-induced involvement load and larning words from context.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 5, Pp. 69-86.
• Hu, M. & Nassaji, H. (2016). “Effective vocabulary learning tasks: Invlvement Load Hypothesis versus Technique Feature Analysis.” System, 56, Pp. 28-39.
• Izumi, S. (2002). “Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis.” Studies in second language acquisition, 24(4), Pp. 541-577. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023
• James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
• Jing, L. & Jianbin, H. (2009). “An empirical study of the Involvement Load Hypothesis in incedental vocabulary acquisition in EFL listening.” Polyglossia, 16, Pp. 1-11.
• Keating, G. D. (2008). “Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial.” Language Teaching Research, 12(3), Pp. 365-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089922
• Kim, Y. J. (2008). “The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition.” Language Learning, 58(2), Pp. 285-325.
• Keller, J. M. (1983). “Motivational design of instruction.” Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status, 1(1983), Pp. 383-434.
• Krashen, S. (1989 ). “We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis.” The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), Pp. 440-464. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x
• Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
• Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). “Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second langugae: The construct of task-induced involvement.” Applied linguistics, 22(1), Pp. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.1
• Lu, J., & Huang, J. (2009). “An empirical study of the involvement load hypothesis in incidental vocabulary acquisition in EFL listening.” Polyglossia, 16, Pp. 2-11.
• Maftoon, P., & Sharifi Haratmeh, M. (2012). “The relative effectiveness of input and output-oriented tasks with different involvement loads on the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge of iranian EFL learners.” Journal of Teaching Languge Skills, 31(2), Pp. 27-52. doi: 10.22099/JTLS.2012.497
• McLaughlin, B. (1965). “‘Intentional’ and ‘incidental’ learning in human subjects: The role of instructions to learn and motivation.” Psychological Bulletin, 63(5), P. 359. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0021759
• Nelson, T. O. (1977). “Repetition and depth of processing.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(2), Pp. 151-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80044-3
• Newton, J. (1995). “Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: A case study.” Second Language Research, 11(2), Pp. 77-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839501100207
• Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). “Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework.” The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), Pp. 12-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02011.x
• Peters, E. (2012). “The differential effects of two vocabulary instruction methods on EFL word learning: A study into task effectivenes.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50(3), Pp. 213-238.
• Postman, L. (1964). “Studies of learning to learn II: Changes in transfer as a function of practice.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3(5), Pp. 437-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(64)80014-1
• Reuterskiöld, C., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2013). “Retention of idioms following one-time exposure.” Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29(2), Pp. 219-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659012456859
• Sarbazi, M. R. (2014). “Involvement load hypothesis: Recalling unfamiliar words meaning by adults across genders.” Procedia- Social and Behavioral Science, 98(6), Pp. 1686-1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.594
• Shiri, M. & Hejazi, N. (2019). “Investigating the evolution of terminological theories: From lexical turns in GTT to metamorphosis of frame-based terminological units.” Language Related Research, 9(6), Pp. 93-121.
• Skehan, P. (1991). “Individual differences in second language learning.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), Pp. 275-298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009979
• Swain, M. (2005). “The output hypothesis: theory and research.” In E. Heinkel (Ed), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Pp.471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Toth, P. D. (2006). “Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition.” Language Learning, 56(2), Pp. 319-385. doi: 10.1111/j.0023- 33.2006.00349.x
• Waring, R., & Tataki, M. (2003). “At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary.” Reading in a Foriegn Langugae, 15(2), Pp. 130-162.
• Yaqubi, B., Rayati, R., & Gorgi, A. (2010). “Involvemnt load hypothesis and vocabulary learning: The effect of task types and involvment load index on L2 vocabulary acquisition.” Journal of Teaching Langugae Skills, 29(1), Pp. 145-163. doi: 10.22099/JTLS.2012.404
Language Related Research
Volume 10, Issue 6 - Serial Number 54
January and February 2019
Pages 55-86