English Learners’ Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in the Video-based CALL Program

| December 24, 2010
Title
English Learners Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in the Video-based CALL Program

Keywords: English listening proficiency, English reading proficiency, incidental vocabulary acquisition

Authors
Lu-Fang Lin
National Taiwan Ocean University, Taiwan

Bio Data
Lu-Fang Lin received her Ph. D. degree in 2004 at the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Victoria, B.C., Canada. She currently is an assistant professor in the Institute of Applied English, National Taiwan Ocean University, Taiwan. She is presently involved in research into English reading comprehension instruction and Multimedia English teaching and learning.

Abstract
This study investigated the effects of video-based computer assisted language learning (VBCALL) program on English learners incidental vocabulary acquisition and further explored the differences in vocabulary learning between English learners with high and low English reading and listening proficiency. The participants in this study were 82 university freshmen. Based on the results of an English proficiency test, three English proficiency groups were set up: (1) 44 participants with high reading and high listening English proficiency (the RHLH group), (2) 20 participants with high reading and low listening English proficiency the RHLL group), and (3) 18 participants with low reading and high listening English proficiency (the RLLH group). All participants completed five practice sessions, five vocabulary follow-up tests, and vocabulary pre- and post-tests. Quantitative analysis was conducted in terms of three proficiency groups. The results demonstrated that RHLH, RHLL, and RLLH groups vocabulary post-tests were both higher than those of their pre-tests. Paired t-test results show that RHLH and RHLL groups respectively performed significantly better in the vocabulary posttest. One-way ANOVA results demonstrate that in the vocabulary follow-up tests, the total scores revealed significant differences between the RHLH and RLLH groups. The qualitative interpretation was presented in terms of the participants one-on-one interview response.

[private]

Download PDF

[/private]

Category: Quarterly Journal, Volume 12 Issue 4