Study Efl Vocabulary Learning Through Reading BBC News 2015 PDF

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/289407105
EFL Vocabulary Learning through Reading BBC News: An Analysis Based

on the Involvement Load Hypothesis
Article · December 2015

DOI: 10.6294/EaGLE.2015.0102.03
CITATIONS READS
3 298
1 author:
Mark Feng Teng

Hong Kong Baptist University
44 PUBLICATIONS 110 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Open call for a special issue of Journal of Writing Research (ESCI/Scopus index) Promoting metacognitive strategy-focused instruction
for EFL/L2 writing: Orientation, practice, and performance View project
Literacy Development for Primary and Secondary English Language Learners Across the Greater China Region View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Feng Teng on 06 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal: Vol. 1 No.2 (2015) 63-90
© Foreign Language Center, National Cheng Kung University & Airiti Press Inc.
DOI:10.6294/EaGLE.2015.0102.03
EFL Vocabulary Learning through Reading

BBC News: An Analysis Based on the
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Feng Teng1
Abstract
This study measured incidental vocabulary learning and supported the
reliability of Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH)
among learners with different word levels by focusing on four tasks involving
reading the BBC news. A vocabulary test designed by Nation (1983) was taken
by the 180 participants, who were then placed into four word levels based on
their test results: 40 learners at the 2,000 word level; 60 learners at the 3,000 word
level; 48 learners at the 5,000 word level; and, 32 learners at the university word
level. Participants at each level were divided into four groups, with each subgroup
completing one of four vocabulary learning tasks that varied in the cognitive
load required: reading comprehension (low effort), reading comprehension plus
supplied target words (moderate effort), reading comprehension plus composition
writing (strong effort), and reading comprehension plus dictionary look-up and
composition writing (very strong effort). Findings revealed that, in line with
the predictions of ILH, vocabulary learning was highest in the fourth task, and
descended according to involvement load. This study also suggested that the
applicability of incidental learning and ILH was affected by the participants’ word
levels, and that a critical lexical threshold appeared to exist for comprehending
the BBC News.
Keywords: vocabulary learning; Involvement Load Hypothesis; incidental

learning; reading
1
Lecturer, Department of English, Nanning University, China. Corresponding author, E-mail:
tengfeng@uni.canberra.edu.au
EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 63 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

64 EaGLE Journal 1(2), 2015
1. Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that vocabulary plays an indispensable role
in reading comprehension; however, the relationship between vocabulary
and reading comprehension is complex. This complexity lies in the
encoding of vocabulary within the given context and the decoding of
information while reading. As the building blocks of learning a language,
vocabulary has received considerable research emphasis with the ultimate
aim of improving vocabulary outcomes for EFL learners (Bell, 2001; Coady,
1997). In regard to research targeting how reading improves the learning
of vocabulary, Au (1993) showed that integrating the teaching of word
meanings within the given context is more helpful than a separate word list
with explanations. This activity of learning word meanings according to
their context is defined as “semantic mapping” (Stahl and Vancil, 1986, p.
62) and “word family association” (Nagy, 1988, p. 30).
Reading input provides the basis for most vocabulary learning (Waring
and Nation, 2004), and to facilitate acquisition of vocabulary, reading inputs
should be authentic (Nunan, 2002) and comprehensible (Krashen, 1985).
To achieve the desired vocabulary learning outcomes, learners should be
encouraged to read many authentic and comprehensible materials, such as
BBC News. In doing so, learners can benefit by gaining knowledge of word
meanings. As one popular source of authentic and comprehensible reading
inputs, BBC News materials can be used to help EFL students learn more
vocabulary. Accordingly, the present study employed BBC News articles
as reading materials with the goal of expanding our existing knowledge of
task-induced involvement by testing its predictive power on word learning
by Chinese-native speakers of different proficiency levels.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Inputs and outputs
Reading is a major source for language inputs among both EFL
and native learners and speakers. However, most EFL learners receive

EFL Vocabulary Learning through Reading BBC News: 65
An Analysis Based on the Involvement Load Hypothesis
only limited language inputs, which inhibits their ability to read a wider
variety of English material. Unfortunately, this fruitless cycle is common
in EFL settings. Krashen (1982, 1985, 2004) conducted many studies
supporting input theory, and pointed out that inputs are preconditions
and prerequisites for learning English. Similarly, Day and Bamford (1998)
suggested that extensive reading helps students become more proficient in
the English language. Adding to this, Ramscar and Dye (2010) suggested
that the acquisition of regular and irregular language structures comes
from conventions in the distribution patterns of reading texts without any
connections with a learner’s innate constraints. Thus, it is very important to
use reading as a language input for EFL learners.
Output theory is the opposite of input theory, and stems from the
unexpected results of the French immersion program in Canada in the
1980s. Swain (1985, p. 248) called this output “pushed,” and language
learners benefited from the output practice. Swain (1999) argued that
providing more opportunities for output made sense for individuals to
learn languages. According to Mackey (2002), learners could understand
the teachers’ interpretations and benefit from the interactional processes
after being pushed to make modifications. Moreover, these studies suggest
the benefits of outputs for learning languages and display the benefits of
“pushing” learners to produce language with grammatical structures or
vocabulary that exceeds their current level.
In the present study, the tasks were designed to link meaning-focused
inputs with meaning-focused output exercises based on Nation’s (2007)
Four Strands.
2.2 Incidental versus intentional learning

The controversy between incidental and intentional learning of
vocabulary has existed for decades, and many studies have been conducted
to distinguish between these two forms of learning.
Incidental learning, which is achieved in an implicit way, is a “by-
product” of any teaching activity (Hulstijn, 2001, p. 266). When learners try
to understand the embedded meaning of a context, the acquisition of words

occurs subconsciously (Paribakht & Wesche, 1999). Many studies have also
explored the effects of extensive reading on incidental vocabulary learning
(Day, Omura, & Hiramatsu, 1991; Horst, 2005; Webb, 2008). Although
these studies used different methodologies, they produced a similar result:
incidental vocabulary learning does occur from reading.
Waring and Takaki (2003) used the graded reader, A Little Princess, to
test the effects of reading and word frequency rates on vocabulary learning.
Their findings suggested that, although words can be learned incidentally,
not many words can be learned this way. More specifically, the learners
relied heavily on the frequency of the words and their deliberate learning.
Nevertheless, much research (e.g., Krashen, 1993; Laufer, 2009; Nagy,
Herman, & Anderson, 1985) has indicated that the successful achievement
of incidental vocabulary learning could manifest through reading.
Although the present study will not settle the controversy surrounding
incidental vs. intentional learning, it does provide in-depth insights into
incidental learning by testing the predictive power of ILH on word learning
by EFL students of various proficiency levels.
2.3 Involvement Load Hypothesis

Craik and Lockhart (1972) proposed the depth of processing model,
which outlines the relationship between deeper processed information and
long-term retention ability. In brief, the deeper the level of information
processed, the longer the memory is maintained. Craik and Tulving (1975)
subsequently added the notion of elaboration to the processing model,
asserting that new input information that relates to preexisting information
is easier for learners to retain. Building on the above theoretical notions
and constructs, Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) proposed the Involvement Load
Hypothesis (ILH), which includes the notions of cognitive and motivational
factors.
According to ILH, the level of involvement in a task determines
the retention ability for unfamiliar words. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001)
suggested three task-induced involvement load constructs: need, search,
and evaluation. The component of need refers to whether knowledge of

novel words is required to complete a task, and is a motivational but non-

cognitive dimension of involvement that can be distinguished as a strong
need or a moderate need. A need is strong when it is self-imposed by the
learner (e.g., a learner wishes to communicate a concept for which s/he
lacks a word) and moderate when it is imposed by the task (e.g., answering
reading comprehension questions that require knowledge of previously
unknown words).
Search and evaluation are the two cognitive dimensions of
involvement. Search refers to finding the meaning of an unknown word.
Consequently, search is absent when this action is not required (e.g.,
reading comprehension tasks accompanied by marginal glosses) and
present when this action is required (e.g., dictionary look-up tasks).
Evaluation entails comparing a new word with other words or determining
whether the word can be used in the given context or not. Evaluation
is said to be moderate when learners are required to locate differences
between words provided in a given context (e.g., deciding which meaning
of a target word best fits the context in which it is encountered) and strong
when learners are required to identify the meanings of unknown words and
use them in a new context (e.g., sentence and composition writing).
According to another study (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001), need, search,
and evaluation do not always appear simultaneously during a reading task,
as some of the constructs may be absent. As such, they proposed a 3-level
“involvement index” to define the processing depth. With the “involvement
index,” the absence of a component is marked as 0, a (moderate) presence
of a component is marked as 1, and a strong presence of a component is
marked as 2. According to ILH, tasks with higher indexes lead to better
outcomes in learning vocabulary.
2.4 Limitations of prior research

At the time of this study, research testing ILH was limited in at
least three ways. First, a great deal of research has only studied advanced
learners. For example, participants in Eckerth and Tavakoli’s (2012) study
were at an IELTS 7 level. Although one study focused on beginning learners

(Keating, 2008), a study involving learners of various proficiency levels, to

the best of my knowledge, has not been conducted. Second, much research
has only tested the effect of ILH on learners’ passive word knowledge.
Therefore, it is not known how ILH affects the active word knowledge of
newly acquired words. Third, previous studies have focused on three tasks
to test ILH, while the present study went one step further and involved four
vocabulary tasks.
3. Research Questions
With respect to the articles reviewed, this study developed the
following three research questions:
(1) Do learners at different word levels assigned to tasks with different
involvement indexes evince different outcomes in word learning?
(2) What is the lexical threshold for comprehending BBC materials?
(3) As the task with the highest involvement index, does Task 4 provide
the maximum benefit in learning vocabulary regardless of the learners’
word levels?
4. Methodology
4.1 Participants
To categorize the participants’ word levels, the 180 English majors
(aged 19-22) recruited to participate in this study were given a vocabulary
test (Nation, 1983). The rationale for choosing English majors was that they
were believed to have a higher English proficiency level.
According to the results of the vocabulary test, 40 learners were at the
2,000 word level, 60 were at the 3,000 word level, 48 were at the 5,000 word
level, and 32 were at the university word level. According to Nation (1983,
p. 16), learners at the 2,000 word level have mastered the general service
list, which is a word list for reading simplified materials; the 3,000 word
level is the basis for beginning to read more complex materials; the 5,000
word level is the basis for beginning to read original texts; and learners

at the university word level have acquired some specialized vocabulary of

university texts. Detailed test results are given in Table 1.
4.2 Materials and target words

The materials chosen were from the online BBC News (www.bbc.com).
Five news texts were chosen, with a total combined word count of 9,465. In
the present study, in order to focus the participants’ attention on reading
for meaning, the students were informed that there were some reading
comprehension questions for them to answer. However, the responses
were not scored, as reading comprehension was not the research aim of the
current study.
In the present study, 26 words were chosen as the test items. The
rationale for selecting these words was that the target words should be
beyond the university word level. Therefore, words from the 7,000, 8,000,
and 9,000 word levels were selected (see Appendix A for the target items)
and confirmed using the Vocabprofile program (Cobb, n.d.). Although it is
possible that the participants may have known those words in advance, it
was considered unlikely.
4.3 Tasks
The present study investigated four tasks with different involvement
indexes, as shown in Table 2.
As described in Table 2, the involvement load need was held constant.
The four tasks differed only in the component search (absent or present)
and evaluation (none, moderate, or strong). As can be seen, Task 4 had the
Table1: Results of vocabulary level test

Academic year
Learners Number Word level
First-year Second-year Third-year
English-major 40 2,000 22 12 6
English-major 60 3,000 28 22 10
English-major 48 5,000 12 16 20
University
English-major 32 3 12 17
word level

Table 2: Four tasks with different involvement indexes

Involvement load Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4
Need Moderate (1) Moderate (1) Moderate (1) Moderate (1)
Search Absent (0) Absent (0) Absent (0) Present (1)
Evaluation None (0) Moderate (1) Strong (2) Strong (2)
Summed Involvement Indexes 1 2 3 4
highest summed involvement index at 4, followed by Task 3, Task 2, and

Task 1.
Participants completing Task 1 read texts with marginal glosses. In
contrast, Task 2 involved reading texts in which the target words were
replaced by equally-sized gaps that had to be filled in from a word list
containing the target word itself, its part of speech (noun, verb, adjective,
and adverb), and a brief definition. These definitions were identical to those
provided as glosses in Task 1 and Task 3. Task 3 involved reading texts with
marginal glosses under the same conditions as in Task 1. After having read
the text, students were required to write a composition (on any theme)
incorporating all words from the word list. Finally, Task 4 involved reading
texts without marginal glosses. Students were provided a word list without
definitions and were encouraged to use a dictionary for meaning searches.
In addition, students were required to write a composition (on any theme)
with the words from the word list (please refer to Appendix B for an
example of each task).
The motivational dimension, need, was low in the four tasks because
the necessity to understand an unknown word was task-generated rather
than self-imposed. The first cognitive dimension, search, was absent in
Tasks 1, 2, and 3 because the definitions of the unknown words were already
provided, but was present in Task 4. The second cognitive dimension,
evaluation, was systematically controlled. For example, evaluation was
absent in Task 1 because the word meanings were provided, but was
moderate in Task 2 since the word meanings had to be selected from a
word list. Evaluation was strong in Tasks 3 and 4, as word meanings had
to be selected and evaluated in the context of other words and expressed
correctly through writing a composition.

4.4 Procedure
As mentioned above, the 180 participants were categorized according
to English proficiency into four word levels. Participants in each word-level
category were divided equally and randomly into four groups with each
subgroup completing one of the four tasks. Participants were not informed
of the purpose of the study. They were also not told that vocabulary tests
would be administered after the reading program, so as to not motivate
participants to memorize the words in anticipation of a following test.
The author prepared and printed the reading materials for all
participants. One English teacher was responsible for each task, so a total
of four teachers were involved. They were non-native English speakers.
Task instructions were provided in Chinese to better facilitate the students’
understanding of the task procedures.
All tasks were finished during regular class time and completed by
participants at their own pace. The teachers distributed the tasks and
administered the tests. After receiving their tasks, participants read the
directions (as the participants are English majors, the directions were
written in English) on the cover page and began reading the materials. The
time for finishing the tasks varied among the treatment groups. Tasks 1,
2, 3, and 4 took an average of 90, 120, 150, and 190 minutes to complete,
respectively. After participants completed their tasks, the teachers collected
their materials and distributed the post-tests, as described below.
4.5 Research instruments

Vocabulary Proficiency Test: The vocabulary proficiency test was
designed to measure the active recall word knowledge of the 26 target
items. The test included two parts (see Appendix C). The first part provided
prompt sentences for the learners to guess and write down the test words.
An example is shown as follows:
If a company has no money to pay their debts, it means they

are a(an) ____ company. (insolvent)

Participants were given one point for writing a correct word and zero
for an incorrect word.
The second part required the learners to produce a sentence with the
test words. Similarly, the learner also received one point for producing
a sentence that correctly incorporated the target word in terms of usage
(grammar/spelling was not judged).
The maximum possible score for the test was 52 points (26 points
each for parts one and two). The results of which were used to establish
the proficiency of the participants. This vocabulary test was administered
twice: once four weeks prior to the reading program and immediately after
the reading program to assess the learners’ vocabulary growth. The reason
for administering the test four weeks prior to the program was to prevent
alerting the participants’ attention to the target words. In addition, to avoid
the difficulties involved in creating equal-level word-proficiency tests, the
post test was identical to the pre-test with the exception that the item order
was changed.
5. Findings and Discussion

5.1 Question 1
The findings for the first research question of “do learners at different
word levels assigned to tasks with different involvement indexes evince
different outcomes in word learning” are shown below.
5.2 2,000 word level

The descriptive statistics and paired-sample t-test results for
participants at the 2,000 word level before and after completing the four
tasks in the reading program are shown in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, none of the learners at the 2,000 word level
demonstrated a significant difference before and after the task (p > .05). The
best vocabulary outcome was only 2.63 in Task 4, which is still quite low.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics and t-test results for participants at the

2,000 word level
M N S.D. SEM t df p
Task 1 Before 1.60 10 2.45 .77 -.142 9 .89
After 2.11 10 1.76 .55
Task 2 Before 1.61 10 2.87 .90 .625 9 .85
After 2.21 10 2.16 .68
Task 3 Before 1.71 10 3.38 1.60 .412 9 .69
After 2.42 10 2.11 .66
Task 4 Before 1.51 10 1.31 .41 .524 9 .61
After 2.63 10 2.20 .69
*p < .05

Table 4 shows that the mean scores for the four tasks after the
reading program were all higher than those from before the program,
which indicates that all four tasks promoted learning vocabulary (p <
.05). To assess whether the facilitative performance of the four tasks in
learning vocabulary was significant, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted, the results of which are shown in Table 5.
As indicated in Table 5, the learning vocabulary outcomes of the four
tasks after the reading program were not significantly different (p > .05).
Table 4: Descriptive statistics and t -test results for participants at the

3,000 word level
M N S.D. SEM t df p
Task 1 Before 2.06 15 1.27 .33 -9.27 14 .00*
After 7.13 15 1.65 .42
Task 2 Before 2.27 15 1.16 .30 -6.56 14 .00*
After 7.36 15 1.86 .48
Task 3 Before 2.53 15 1.50 .38 -7.14 14 .00*
After 7.76 15 1.82 .47
Task 4 Before 2.80 15 1.37 .35 -6.87 14 .00*
After 8.03 15 2.06 .53
*p < .05

Table 5: One-way ANOVA results of the four tasks after the program
S df M F p
Between tasks .183 3 .06 .018 .97
Within tasks 193.467 56 3.45
Total 193.650 59
*p < .05
Moreover, it is unclear which task had the strongest facilitative power in

learning vocabulary for participants at the 3,000 word level.

As shown in Table 6, the predictive effects that the four tasks produced
for participants at the 5,000 word level before and after the program
were significant (p < .05). This demonstrates that the four tasks provided
predictive power in learning vocabulary for the learners at the 5,000
word level, with Task 4 being the most effective task. The next step was to
conduct ANOVA to assess whether the difference between the four tasks
was significant.
Table 7 indicates that the difference between the four tasks was indeed
significant. To avoid Type I error, a post-hoc multiple comparison test was
then applied.

5,000 word level
M N S.D. SEM t df P
Task 1 Before 4.17 12 1.80 .51 -5.93 14 .00*
After 15.00 12 1.47 .42
Task 2 Before 4.33 12 1.66 .48 -16.01 14 .00*
After 17.00 12 1.12 .32
Task 3 Before 4.67 12 1.82 .52 -10.82 14 .00*
After 19.50 12 2.57 .74
Task 4 Before 4.83 12 1.69 .48 -21.38 14 .00*
After 24.08 12 1.67 .48
*p < .05

Table 7: One-way ANOVA results for the four tasks after the program
S df M F P
Between tasks 552.563 3 184.19 57.106 .00*
Within tasks 141.917 44 3.23
Total 696.479 47
*p < .05
Table 8 shows that Task 4 provided more significant facilitative power

than Task 3, while the facilitative power of Task 3 was more significant
than Task 2, and Task 2 yielded better results than Task 1 (p < .05). As
a consequence, it can be said that the optimum task that provided the
strongest vocabulary-learning facilitative power for the participants at the
5,000 word level was Task 4, as the results for Task 4 were significantly
higher than the other tasks.
5.5 University word level

The descriptive statistics and t-test results for participants at the
university word level before and after the reading program are given in Table 9.
Table 8: Post-hoc multiple comparison of the four tasks after the program
95% CI
(I) task (J) task M.D. (I-J) SEM p
Lower bound Upper bound
1 2 -2.00 .73 .03* -4.13 .13
3 -4.50 .73 .00* -6.63 -2.36
4 -9.08 .73 .00* -11.21 -6.95
2 1 2.00 .73 .03* -.13 4.13
3 -2.50 .73 .02* -4.63 -.36
4 -7.08 .73 .00* -9.21 -4.95
3 1 4.50 .73 .00* 2.36 6.63
2 2.50 .73 .20* .36 4.63
4 -4.58 .73 .00* -6.71 -2.45
4 1 9.08 .73 .00* 6.95 11.21
2 7.08 .73 .00* 4.95 9.21
3 -4.58 .73 .00* 2.45 6.71
*p < .05


university word-list level
M N S.D. SEM t df P
Task 1 Before 5.13 8 2.94 1.04 -7.76 7 .00*
After 23.50 8 1.19 .42
Task 2 Before 4.63 8 1.18 .41 -20.57 7 .00*
After 25.25 8 .70 .25
Task 3 Before 5.00 8 1.19 .42 -29.10 7 .00*
After 27.10 8 1.19 .42
Task 4 Before 5.13 8 .99 .35 -22.01 7 .00*
After 31.50 8 1.51 .53
*p < .05
Table 9 shows that all four tasks provided facilitative power in

learning vocabulary after the reading program and that the improvement
in vocabulary was significant (p < .05). As can be seen, Task 4 was the best
performing task for vocabulary improvement. As before, ANOVA was
then conducted to determine if the mean scores for the four tasks were
significant.
Table 10 indicates that the improvements in learning vocabulary
according to the task performed differed significantly (p < .05). To better
compare the tasks, a post-hoc multiple comparison test was applied, as
before.
Table 11 shows that Task 2 provided a significantly better facilitative
power in learning vocabulary than Task 1 (p < .05), Task 3 yielded better
results than Task 2 (p < .05), and Task 4 yielded significantly better results
than the other three tasks (p < .05).
Table 10: One-way ANOVA results for the four tasks after the program
S df M F p
Between tasks 152.375 3 50.79 36.004 .00*
Within tasks 39.500 28 1.41
Total 191.875 31
*p < .05

Table 11: Post-hoc multiple comparison of the four tasks after the program
95% CI
(I) task (J) task M.D. (I-J) SEM p
Lower bound Upper bound
1 2 -1.75 .59 .00* -3.51 .01
3 -2.50 .59 .00* -4.26 -.73
4 -6.00 .59 .00* -7.76 -4.23
2 1 1.75 .59 .00* -.01 3.51
3 -.75 .59 .00* -2.51 1.01
4 -4.25 .59 .00* -6.01 -2.48
3 1 2.50 .59 .00* .73 4.26
2 .75 .59 .00* -1.01 2.51
4 -3.50 .59 .00* -5.26 -1.73
4 1 6.00 .59 .00* 4.23 7.76
2 4.25 .59 .00* 2.48 6.01
3 3.50 .59 .00* 1.73 5.26
*p < .05
Therefore, based on the results, it appears that the tasks facilitated

vocabulary learning for the participants at the 3,000, 5,000, and university
word levels, which addresses the first research question of whether learners
at different word levels assigned to tasks with different involvement indexes
evince different outcomes in word learning. However, the effects of the
four tasks for the participants at the 3,000 word level were not significantly
different from each other. For the participants at the 5,000 and university
word level, Task 4 yielded the best results, followed by Task 3, Task 2, and
Task 1, respectively.
5.6 Question 2
To answer the second question of what the lexical threshold is for
reading BBC business materials comprehensibly, the vocabulary gain results
at each word level were analyzed.
First, concerning vocabulary growth in this study, the students at the
2,000 word level demonstrated a weak position. Consequently, this implies
that knowledge of the 2,000 word level is insufficient for such learners to
recognize and use the words in a specific area of written texts, such as the

BBC news materials in this study. This is in line with Nation and Hwang’s
(1995) study that the sight-recognition knowledge of the 2,000 word level is
far from adequate for general reading comprehension. Second, with regard
to the critical lexical threshold for reading comprehension and learning
vocabulary, Nation (1993) proposed that knowledge of around 3,000 word
level is the critical threshold needed for basic reading comprehension.
When this threshold is not met, learners will likely encounter lexical
problems in understanding the English they are exposed to (Alderson &
Banerjee, 2002).
Although the participants at the 3,000 word level in the current study
demonstrated a significant vocabulary improvement after taking part in
the reading program, the results of the four tasks in terms of learning
vocabulary were unexpected in that vocabulary growth from each task did
not significantly differ. This suggests that although some participants at
the 3,000 word level conducted writing tasks (Tasks 3 and 4), they did not
produce a significantly better outcome than the reading plus fill-in exercise
(Task 2) or simple reading task (Task 1).
At the 5,000 word level and the university word level, the learners
registered enormous improvements in learning vocabulary and yielded
different results for the different tasks. Accordingly, it is suggested that
5,000 word level is a minimum level resulted in greater lexical coverage and
superior vocabulary improvement, with the university word level yielding
the maximum vocabulary growth. These results accord with two other
recent related studies, namely Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski (2010) and
Laufer (2013).
Therefore, regarding the second research question of the lexical
threshold for reading BBC news, the results of this study suggest that the
threshold locates at around the 5,000 word level.
5.7 Question 3
The third research question, “does Task 4 with the highest involvement
index provide the maximum benefit in learning vocabulary regardless of
the learners’ word levels,” is addressed in the following.

Participants at the 2,000 word level did not appear to register different
outcomes in learning vocabulary from the four tasks, including Task 4.
Although the participants at the 3,000 word level displayed vocabulary
growth, the predictive power produced by the four tasks was not
significantly different. This means it is also difficult to claim that Task 4
facilitated the greatest amount of vocabulary learning for those at the 3,000
word level.
One possible explanation is that the numerical values of the
involvement index given to the four tasks were not treated with the same
weight. For example, the requirement of evaluation, which is to compare
the specific meaning of a word with other meanings through writing a
composition, may have been too difficult for the learners at the 3,000 word
level. To those at this level, some words may have been confusing and some
meanings misleading. Thus, predicting the requirement of evaluation that
refers to the comparison of the usage of the target words with other words
is problematic.
For the learners at the 5,000 word level and university word level,
the results evidently endorse the hypothesis that Task 4, with the highest
involvement index, led to the best results in vocabulary learning.
Therefore, concerning the third research question, Task 4, with the
highest involvement index, was demonstrated to yield the maximum
benefits in learning vocabulary for learners at the 5,000 word level and
university word level. It is also implied by the present study that a lexical
threshold is key to ILH, and that the efficacy of ILH is connected with the
learners’ current word levels.
6. Pedagogical Implications
Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) claimed that the retention of word
meanings was based on the manipulation of cognitive and motivational
variables within tasks; in other words, learning was based on the need,
search, and motivation factors assigned in different tasks. Drawing on
ILH, which purports that tasks with higher involvement indexes lead to
better learning outcomes, four different tasks were designed with different

involvement indexes in the present study. Overall, the findings had both
expected and unexpected outcomes. One expected result was that learners
at the 2,000 word level did not benefit differentially from the four tasks in
vocabulary learning. An unanticipated result was that although the learners
at the 3,000 word level registered vocabulary growth, the predictive power
produced by the four tasks did not significantly differ, which brings ILH
into question for this level of English proficiency. Be that as it may, this
does not mean that IHL is not applicable, only that more consideration
(e.g., learners’ word levels) should be paid to the implementation of the two
cognitive constructs (namely search and evaluation).
The findings from the present study imply that the three constructs
of task-induced involvement have a different role in EFL vocabulary
learning. Need, a drive to learn vocabulary, is the precondition for the
acquisition of an unknown word; in contrast, search, which means the
action of determining word meanings through use of a dictionary, leads
to vocabulary growth; and lastly, evaluation, comparing and assessing the
word usage of an unknown word, leads to the final acquisition of words.
However, the active evaluation for using words did not lead to significant
vocabulary growth for the students at the 2,000 and 3,000 word levels.
One reason might be that it is too early to expect students at these levels
to produce language with vocabulary that exceeds their current level. As a
consequence, it is justifiable that the construct of evaluation should not be
highlighted for the students with a low proficiency level.
For students at the 2,000 and 3,000 word levels to read BBC news,
elaborate bottom-up processing of frequent words is necessary because
it is difficult for them to achieve a level of comprehension sufficient to
incidentally learn new words from reading authentic texts until they
have gained a certain lexical threshold in the target language. Moreover,
due to the lexical threshold deficiency, it could be argued that deliberate
vocabulary teaching should be incorporated into class activities for lower
level students, and that teachers should encourage the development of
extensive vocabulary knowledge so that learners can use new words both
receptively and productively, which is an important part of a well-balanced
four strands vocabulary teaching program (Nation, 2008). This method

has been found helpful for learners of low proficiency levels (Nation &
Yamamoto, 2012; Teng, 2014b, 2014c). More specifically, such teaching
methods require explicit vocabulary teaching for which particular words
and phrases are focused on, various types of deliberate teaching styles for
practicing vocabulary are used, and frequent attention to target words is
given.
Finally, another salient finding this study produced was in noting that
learners at the advanced level, such as the 5,000 word level and university
word level, had significant improvement in vocabulary learning through
reading BBC News and employing the evaluation construct. This indicates
that there is value in designing tasks based on ILH for learners of high
proficiency levels.
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that it may not be sufficient to
simply require students to read more and assign them more written tasks.
Moreover, the students’ ability to handle the cognitive and motivational
dimensions of tasks and their lexical threshold for reading comprehension
is a critical point that must be considered. And as discussed above, the
incidental learning of vocabulary and the applicability of ILH is affected
by learners’ lexical levels. Although this study was conducted in provincial
China, the results have resonance for the many global contexts where
English is taught and learned as a foreign language.
8. Limitations
First, because of the methodological limitations of the present study
(e.g., completion times were not held constant across the four tasks),
generalizations may not be able to be made concerning task-induced
involvement. Some evidence has suggested that the benefits associated with
more effective tasks are negated when completion times are held constant
across tasks (e.g., Folse, 2006; Webb, 2005). Furthermore, the issue of word
exposure frequency was not taken into consideration (Teng, 2014a), adding

this issue will make this study more inclusive. Finally, the numbers of
participants in each group was also small; a bigger sample would provide
more robust results.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Shu Zhang, Bing Zhang,
Fang He, and Huiping Qin, our four English teachers in our department
who contributed their time and effort to this study. I also owe a special
thanks to my students, who sacrificed their precious time for joining this
study. I also want to convey my sincere appreciation to the anonymous
reviewers who provided me with professional suggestions on improving the
quality of this paper. This study is funded by Nanning University (research
grant number: 2014JSGC10).
References
Alderson, J. C., & Banerjee, J. (2002). Language testing and assessment (Part
2). Language Teaching, 35, 79-113.
Au, K. H. (1993). Literacy unstruction in multicultural settings. New York,
NY: Harcourt Brace.
Bell, T. (2001). Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. Reading Matrix:
An International Online Journal, 1(1), 1-13.
Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J.
Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A
rationale for pedagogy (pp. 225-237). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Cobb, T. (n.d.). The Compleat Lexical Tutor [Computer software]. Retrieved
from http://www.lextutor.ca/
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.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention
of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General, 104, 268-294.

Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language
classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Day, R. R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary
learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7, 541-551.
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, 227-252.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary
retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 273-293.
Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A
measurement study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 355-382.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary
learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P.
Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258-
286). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the
involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language
Learning, 51, 539-558.
Keating, G. D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second
language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching
Research, 12, 365-386.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New
York, NY: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research.
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Krashen, S. D. (2004, April). Free voluntary reading: New research,
applications, and controversies. Paper presented at the 39th RELC
International Seminar, Singapore.
Laufer, B. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition from language
input and from form-focused activities. Language Teaching, 42, 341-354.

Laufer, B. (2013). Lexical thresholds for reading comprehension: What they

are and how they can be used for teaching purposes. TESOL Quarterly,
47, 867-872.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a
second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied
Linguistics, 22, 1-26.
Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold
revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading
comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(01), 15–30.
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about
interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research,
37, 379-394.
Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from
context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.
Nation, I. S. P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5(1), 12-25.
Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth and use. In. R. Schreuder &
B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 115-134). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 1(1), 2-13.
Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques.
Boston, MA: Heinle.
Nation, I. S. P., & Hwang, K. (1995). Where would general service vocabulary
stop and special purposes vocabulary begin? System, 23(1), 35-41.
Nation, I. S. P., & Yamamoto, A. (2012). Applying the four strands to language
learning. International Journal of Innovation in English Language
Teaching and Research, 1, 167-181.
Nunan, D. (2002). Listening in language learning. In J. C. Richards & W.
A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology
of current practice (pp. 238-241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.

Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2

vocabulary acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,
195-224.
Ramscar, M., & Dye, M. (2010). Learning language from the input:
Why innate constraints can’t explain noun compounding. Cognitive
Psychology, 62, 1-40.
Stahl, S. A., & Vancil, S. J. (1986). Discussion is what makes semantic maps
work in vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 40, 62-69.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235-253).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1999). Integrating language and content teaching through
collaborative tasks. In C. Ward & W. Renandya (Eds.), Language
teaching: New insights for the language teacher (pp. 125-147).
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Teng, F. (2014a). Incidental vocabulary learning by assessing frequency of
word occurrence in a graded reader: Love or money. Language Education
and Acquisition Research Network (LEARN) Journal, 7(2), 36-50.
Teng, F. (2014b). Research Into practice: Strategies for teaching and learning
vocabulary. Beyond Words, 2(2), 41-57.
Teng, F. (2014c, June). Vocabulary growth for low-proficiency students through
reading graded readers. Paper presented at the 1st TRI-ELE International
Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.
Waring, R., & Nation, I. S. P. (2004). Second language reading and incidental
vocabulary learning. Angles on the English-Speaking World, 4, 11-23.
Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain
new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign
Language, 15, 130-163.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects
of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second language
Acquisition, 27, 33-52.
Webb, S. (2008). The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 20, 232-245.

Appendix A
Selected Target Words
Word level Selected target words
7,000 Adamant, anonymity, insolvent, infuriate, pessimistic, resurgence, sluggish, swathe,
indebted, prelude, grapple, entrant, beverage, deflate
8,000 Enumerate, inversion, longevity, reticence, revamp, stagnant, zest
9,000 Brandish, eavesdrop, snub, gnarled, impunity

Appendix B
Sample tasks
Task 1: Glossed reading (1 item out of 26)
A pre-pack administration is one in which the insolvent company
has already lined up a buyer for its profitable assets before it enters
administration, allowing a sale within days.
Insolvent: A person or
an organization that has
not enough money to pay
their debts
Task 2: Reading and filling-in the gaps

A pre-pack administration is one in which the 　　　 company
Word list (5 items out of 26)

Words Part of speech Definition
Adamant adj. Unwilling to change the minds
Anonymity n. The state of remaining unknown to most other people
Insolvent adj. A person or an organization that has not enough money to
pay their debts
Infuriate v. Make someone extremely angry
Pessimistic adj. Someone who believes bad things will happen
Task 3: Glossed reading and writing a composition


Insolvent: A person or
an organization that has
not enough money to pay
their debts
Follow-up writing
Please write a composition on any theme. Please note that you need to
use all the words in the word list.
Word list
Adamant adj. Unwilling to change the minds
Anonymity n. The state of remaining unknown to most other people
Insolvent adj. A person or an organization that has not enough money to pay
their debts
Infuriate v. Make someone extremely angry
Pessimistic adj. Someone who believes bad things will happen
Task 4: Reading, dictionary look-up, and writing a composition

Follow-up writing
Please write a composition on any theme. Please note that you need to
use all the words in the word list. The part of speech (adjective, noun, and
verb) and definition are not provided; please use any dictionary to confirm
them.

Word list
Adamant
Anonymity
Insolvent
Infuriate
Pessimistic

Appendix C
Sample test items (two items out of 26)
Active recall
1. If a company has not enough money to pay their debts, it means they
are a(an) 　　　 company.
Produce a sentence
Please use the word that you have written down to create a new
sentence.
　　　　　　　　　　　　　
2. If someone is determined not to change their mind, it means s/he is
_____ about something.
Produce a sentence
Please use the word that you have written down to create a new
sentence.
　　　　　　　　　　　　　
EaGLE 1(2)-03
View publication statsTeng.indd 90 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

Study Efl Vocabulary Learning Through Reading BBC News 2015 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Study Efl Vocabulary Learning Through Reading BBC News 2015 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

EFL Vocabulary Learning through Reading BBC News: An Analysis Based

Article · December 2015

Mark Feng Teng

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

EFL Vocabulary Learning through Reading

Keywords: vocabulary learning; Involvement Load Hypothesis; incidental

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 63 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 64 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

2.2 Incidental versus intentional learning

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 65 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

2.3 Involvement Load Hypothesis

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 66 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

novel words is required to complete a task, and is a motivational but non-

2.4 Limitations of prior research

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 67 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

(Keating, 2008), a study involving learners of various proficiency levels, to

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 68 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

at the university word level have acquired some specialized vocabulary of

4.2 Materials and target words

Table1: Results of vocabulary level test

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 69 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

Table 2: Four tasks with different involvement indexes

highest summed involvement index at 4, followed by Task 3, Task 2, and

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 70 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

4.5 Research instruments

If a company has no money to pay their debts, it means they

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 71 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

5. Findings and Discussion

5.2 2,000 word level

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 72 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

Table 3: Descriptive statistics and t-test results for participants at the

5.3 3,000 word level

Table 4: Descriptive statistics and t -test results for participants at the

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 73 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

Moreover, it is unclear which task had the strongest facilitative power in

5.4 5,000 word level

Table 6: Descriptive statistics and t -test results for participants at the

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 74 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:23

Table 8 shows that Task 4 provided more significant facilitative power

5.5 University word level

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 75 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

Table 9: Descriptive statistics and t -test results for participants at the

Table 9 shows that all four tasks provided facilitative power in

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 76 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

Therefore, based on the results, it appears that the tasks facilitated

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 77 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 78 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 79 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 80 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 81 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 82 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

General, 104, 268-294.

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 83 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

Laufer, B. (2013). Lexical thresholds for reading comprehension: What they

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 84 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 85 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 86 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24

Task 2: Reading and filling-in the gaps

Word list (5 items out of 26)

Task 3: Glossed reading and writing a composition

EaGLE 1(2)-03 Teng.indd 87 2015/12/25 上午 10:50:24