Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective

Gui Bao

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14

| Peer-Reviewed

Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective

Gui Bao

Published in English Language, Literature & Culture (Volume 7, Issue 1)

Received: 20 January 2022 Accepted: 7 February 2022 Published: 19 February 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This article builds on the growing line of inquiry into the relative effectiveness of different tasks for vocabulary learning. Specifically, the study compares the efficacy of several sentence output tasks in EFL vocabulary learning through reading. To this end, evidence was weighed for one hypothesis over the alternative from a Bayesian perspective rather than in light of the commonly used null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), which depends heavily on the p values for statistical conclusions. Ninety-one EFL learners were randomly assigned to one of three word-focused sentence output tasks (i.e., L2-L1 translating, paraphrasing and writing), and were subsequently tested on their initial learning and retention of newly-encountered EFL words. Both Bayes factor analysis and Bayesian parameter estimation were employed to find evidence for task effects. With respect to initial word learning, moderate evidence was in favor of no difference between translating and paraphrasing, whilst weak evidence in favor of no difference between translating and writing as well as between paraphrasing and writing. For pedagogical purposes, no good evidence was for or against task effects. Regarding word retention, moderate evidence supported no task difference, and all the tasks fared equally well pedagogically. The results partially support the involvement load hypothesis and are discussed in terms of task difficulty, context generation and semantic elaboration.

Published in	English Language, Literature & Culture (Volume 7, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14
Page(s)	19-29
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Vocabulary Learning, Sentence Output, Involvement Load Hypothesis, Context, Bayesian Methods

References

[1]	Bao, G. (2015). Task type effects on English as a Foreign Language learners’ acquisition of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. System, 53, 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.006
[2]	Bao, G. (2019). Comparing input and output tasks in EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition. TESOL International Journal, 14 (1), 1–12.
[3]	Bao, G. (2019). The Bayesian approach to data analysis in applied linguistics. Foreign Languages Research, 176 (4), 16–23.
[4]	Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 1-64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[5]	Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[6]	Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371 (72)80001-X
[7]	Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104 (3), 268–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
[8]	Denwood, M. J. (2016). runjags: An R package providing interface utilities, model templates, parallel computing methods and additional distributions for MCMC models in JAGS. Journal of Statistical Software, 71 (9), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v071.i09
[9]	Dienes, Z., & Mclatchie, N. (2018). Four reasons to prefer Bayesian analyses over significance testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1266-z
[10]	Eckerth, J., & Tavakoli, P. (2012). The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research, 16 (2), 227-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811431377
[11]	Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (2), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264523
[12]	Gohar, M. J., Rahmanian, M., & Soleimani, H. (2018). Technique feature analysis or ILH: Estimating their predictive power in vocabulary learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47 (4), 859–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9568-5
[13]	Hill, M., & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition. IRAL, 41, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.007
[14]	Hu, H.-c. M., & Nassaji, H. (2016). Effective vocabulary learning tasks: ILH versus technique feature analysis. System, 56, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.11.001
[15]	Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the ILH in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51 (3), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00164
[16]	Keating, G. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089922
[17]	Kim, Y.-J. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58 (2), 285–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00442.x
[18]	Kruschke, J. K. (2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Inc.
[19]	Kruschke, J. K. (2018). Rejecting or accepting parameter values in Bayesian estimation. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1 (2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918771304
[20]	Kruschke, J. K., & Liddell, T. M. (2018). The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25, 178–206. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1221-4
[21]	Laufer, B. (2017). From word parts to full texts: Searching for effective methods of vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 21 (1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683118
[22]	Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29 (4), 694–716. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn018
[23]	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
[24]	Laufer, B., & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2015). Retention of new words: Quantity of encounters, quality of task, and degree of knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 19 (6), 687–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814559797
[25]	Lu, M. (2013). Effects of four vocabulary exercises on facilitating learning vocabulary meaning, form, and use. TESOL Quarterly, 47 (1), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.79
[26]	Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2018). Package “BayesFactor.” Accessed 10 March 2020 at https://cran.r-project.org/web/ packages/BayesFactor/index.html
[27]	Nation, P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston: Heinle.
[28]	Nist, S. L., & Mohr, C. (2002). Advancing vocabulary skills. Marlton, NJ: Townsend Press.
[29]	Norouzian, R., de Miranda, M. A., & Plonsky, L. (2018). The Bayesian revolution in second language research: An applied approach. Language Learning, 68 (4): 1032–1075. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12310
[30]	Norouzian, R., de Miranda, M., & Plonsky, L. (2019). A Bayesian approach to measuring evidence in L2 research: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 103 (1), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12543
[31]	Pichette, F., De Serres, L., & Lafontaine, M. (2012). Sentence reading and writing for second language vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33 (1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr037
[32]	Rassaei, E. (2017). Effects of three forms of reading-based output activity on L2 vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 21 (1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815606160
[33]	R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Accessed 5 January 2019 at https://www.R-project.org/
[34]	Rott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input–output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6 (3), 183–222. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr108oa
[35]	Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18 (1), 55–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800103
[36]	Yanagisawa, A., & Webb S. (2021). To what extent does the involvement load hypothesis predict incidental L2 vocabulary learning? A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 2021, 71 (2), 487–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12444
[37]	Yeung, S. S., Ng, M. L., & King, R. B (2016). English vocabulary instruction through storybook reading for Chinese EFL kindergarteners: Comparing rich, embedded, and incidental approaches. The Asian EFL Journal, 18 (2), 81–104.
[38]	Zou, D. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition through cloze exercises, sentence-writing and composition-writing: Extending the evaluation component of the involvement load hypothesis. Language Teaching Research, 21 (1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816652418

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Gui Bao. (2022). Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective. English Language, Literature & Culture, 7(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Gui Bao. Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective. Engl. Lang. Lit. Cult. 2022, 7(1), 19-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Gui Bao. Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective. Engl Lang Lit Cult. 2022;7(1):19-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14,
  author = {Gui Bao},
  title = {Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective},
  journal = {English Language, Literature & Culture},
  volume = {7},
  number = {1},
  pages = {19-29},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ellc.20220701.14},
  abstract = {This article builds on the growing line of inquiry into the relative effectiveness of different tasks for vocabulary learning. Specifically, the study compares the efficacy of several sentence output tasks in EFL vocabulary learning through reading. To this end, evidence was weighed for one hypothesis over the alternative from a Bayesian perspective rather than in light of the commonly used null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), which depends heavily on the p values for statistical conclusions. Ninety-one EFL learners were randomly assigned to one of three word-focused sentence output tasks (i.e., L2-L1 translating, paraphrasing and writing), and were subsequently tested on their initial learning and retention of newly-encountered EFL words. Both Bayes factor analysis and Bayesian parameter estimation were employed to find evidence for task effects. With respect to initial word learning, moderate evidence was in favor of no difference between translating and paraphrasing, whilst weak evidence in favor of no difference between translating and writing as well as between paraphrasing and writing. For pedagogical purposes, no good evidence was for or against task effects. Regarding word retention, moderate evidence supported no task difference, and all the tasks fared equally well pedagogically. The results partially support the involvement load hypothesis and are discussed in terms of task difficulty, context generation and semantic elaboration.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective
AU  - Gui Bao
Y1  - 2022/02/19
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14
T2  - English Language, Literature & Culture
JF  - English Language, Literature & Culture
JO  - English Language, Literature & Culture
SP  - 19
EP  - 29
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-2413
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14
AB  - This article builds on the growing line of inquiry into the relative effectiveness of different tasks for vocabulary learning. Specifically, the study compares the efficacy of several sentence output tasks in EFL vocabulary learning through reading. To this end, evidence was weighed for one hypothesis over the alternative from a Bayesian perspective rather than in light of the commonly used null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), which depends heavily on the p values for statistical conclusions. Ninety-one EFL learners were randomly assigned to one of three word-focused sentence output tasks (i.e., L2-L1 translating, paraphrasing and writing), and were subsequently tested on their initial learning and retention of newly-encountered EFL words. Both Bayes factor analysis and Bayesian parameter estimation were employed to find evidence for task effects. With respect to initial word learning, moderate evidence was in favor of no difference between translating and paraphrasing, whilst weak evidence in favor of no difference between translating and writing as well as between paraphrasing and writing. For pedagogical purposes, no good evidence was for or against task effects. Regarding word retention, moderate evidence supported no task difference, and all the tasks fared equally well pedagogically. The results partially support the involvement load hypothesis and are discussed in terms of task difficulty, context generation and semantic elaboration.
VL  - 7
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Gui Bao

School of Foreign Languages and Literature, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Gui Bao. (2022). Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective. English Language, Literature & Culture, 7(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Gui Bao. Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective. Engl. Lang. Lit. Cult. 2022, 7(1), 19-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Gui Bao. Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective. Engl Lang Lit Cult. 2022;7(1):19-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14,
  author = {Gui Bao},
  title = {Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective},
  journal = {English Language, Literature & Culture},
  volume = {7},
  number = {1},
  pages = {19-29},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ellc.20220701.14},
  abstract = {This article builds on the growing line of inquiry into the relative effectiveness of different tasks for vocabulary learning. Specifically, the study compares the efficacy of several sentence output tasks in EFL vocabulary learning through reading. To this end, evidence was weighed for one hypothesis over the alternative from a Bayesian perspective rather than in light of the commonly used null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), which depends heavily on the p values for statistical conclusions. Ninety-one EFL learners were randomly assigned to one of three word-focused sentence output tasks (i.e., L2-L1 translating, paraphrasing and writing), and were subsequently tested on their initial learning and retention of newly-encountered EFL words. Both Bayes factor analysis and Bayesian parameter estimation were employed to find evidence for task effects. With respect to initial word learning, moderate evidence was in favor of no difference between translating and paraphrasing, whilst weak evidence in favor of no difference between translating and writing as well as between paraphrasing and writing. For pedagogical purposes, no good evidence was for or against task effects. Regarding word retention, moderate evidence supported no task difference, and all the tasks fared equally well pedagogically. The results partially support the involvement load hypothesis and are discussed in terms of task difficulty, context generation and semantic elaboration.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective
AU  - Gui Bao
Y1  - 2022/02/19
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14
T2  - English Language, Literature & Culture
JF  - English Language, Literature & Culture
JO  - English Language, Literature & Culture
SP  - 19
EP  - 29
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-2413
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14
AB  - This article builds on the growing line of inquiry into the relative effectiveness of different tasks for vocabulary learning. Specifically, the study compares the efficacy of several sentence output tasks in EFL vocabulary learning through reading. To this end, evidence was weighed for one hypothesis over the alternative from a Bayesian perspective rather than in light of the commonly used null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), which depends heavily on the p values for statistical conclusions. Ninety-one EFL learners were randomly assigned to one of three word-focused sentence output tasks (i.e., L2-L1 translating, paraphrasing and writing), and were subsequently tested on their initial learning and retention of newly-encountered EFL words. Both Bayes factor analysis and Bayesian parameter estimation were employed to find evidence for task effects. With respect to initial word learning, moderate evidence was in favor of no difference between translating and paraphrasing, whilst weak evidence in favor of no difference between translating and writing as well as between paraphrasing and writing. For pedagogical purposes, no good evidence was for or against task effects. Regarding word retention, moderate evidence supported no task difference, and all the tasks fared equally well pedagogically. The results partially support the involvement load hypothesis and are discussed in terms of task difficulty, context generation and semantic elaboration.
VL  - 7
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download