درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

A long-standing debate among the vocabulary researchers is the depth of processing to learn vocabulary. This paper is a quantitative research which considers a revision in the “involvement load hypothesis” proposed by Laufer and Hulstijn in 2001. It investigates the role of proficiency and evaluation in this hypothesis in order to better reveal its potential contribution to vocabulary learning. It was based on task-induced involvementthat comparesdifferent tasks in incidental vocabulary acquisition in EFL context. The participants were 66 learners fromtwo different English institutes who were classified into two major high and low proficient groups based on Nelson Proficiency Test. The participants in each group were randomly assigned to three tasks prepared to compare“moderate”, “strong”, and “no evaluation” in involvement load hypothesis.The “strong evaluation”subgroup (making original sentences) in low proficiency supported Laufer and Hulstijn’s hypothesis and yielded better retention of the target words. The study suggests that the level of proficiency and evaluation in task induced involvementneeds reconsideration. The results have implications for language teachers, materials developers, and syllabus designers.

Various studies have confirmed the influential role of corrective feedback (CF) in the development of different linguistic skills and components. However, little, if any, research has been conducted on comparing types of linguistic errors treated by teachers through CF. To bridge this gap, this study sought to investigate the linguistic errors addressed and the types of CF provided by teachers. To this end, the classes of 40 teachers teaching at the intermediate level were audio-recorded for two successive sessions. The detailed analysis of around 128 hours of classroom interactions showed that explicit correction was the most frequent CF type, accounting for 48.5 percent of all CF types provided, and recast was the second most frequently used CF type, constituting 29.5 percent of all CF types. All the other CF types (i.e. request for clarification, confirmation check, repetition, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and multiple feedback) constituted 22 percent of the CF. Repetition was the least frequently used CF type, amounting to 0.66 percent of the CF given by teachers. As to the linguistic focus of CF, pronunciation errors were found to be the mostly noticed target for teachers’ CF, constituting 47 percent of all errors addressed, while vocabulary was the least frequently addressed linguistic target, accounting for 17.5 percent of all errors. The study suggests that teachers prefer explicit corrective strategies over implicit ones and that they provide CF mainly to correct pronunciations errors. The study suggests that there is a need for change in the types of CF teachers use and the relative attention they assign to different linguistic error types they treat through CF