TBLT2005 Proceedings 1
Yukie Horiba (Kanda University of International Studies, 1-4-1 Wakaba, Mihama-ku,
Chiba-shi, Chiba-ken 261-0014 Japan. E-mail: horiba@kanda.kuis.ac.jp)
Keiko Fukaya (St. Luke’s College of Nursing, Akashi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0044, Japan. E-mail:
keiko-fukaya@slcn.ac.jp)
LEARNING FROM TEXT:
EFFECTS OF LANGUAGE COMPETENCE AND TOPIC FAMILIARITY
Objectives
The objectives of the study reported in this paper are: (a) to investigate the cognitive
processes that underlie in the comprehension and representation of a second-language (L2) text,
and (b) to examine the role of language competence and topic familiarity in these processes that
would affect the learning from the text.
Background
A central component of text/discourse processing is the construction of a coherent text
representation in memory (e.g., Graesser, Gernsbacher, & Goldman, 2003; Kintsch, 1998; van
Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). This representation consists of multiple levels: the surface code, the
propositional textbase, and the situtation model level. Knowledge of task influences the mode
of processing of a text and its resulting representation (Cote, Goldman, & Saul, 1998; Donin &
Silva, 1993; Horiba, 2000; McDaniel & Einstein, 1989; Zwaan, 1994). A successful L2 text
comprehension requires both linguistic competence and general comprehension skill
(Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Lee & Shallert, 1997). Due to limited linguistic competence L2 text
processing may be inefficient and the resulting representation may be less coherent and
underdeveloped (Barry & Lazarte, 1998; Zwaan & Brown, 1996).
SLA research indicates that cognitive attention must be paid to the form as well as the
meaning of the language (e.g., Long’s Focus on Form; Swain’s Output Hypothesis).
Researchers try to specify task characteristics that would influence performance in L2
production (e.g., Robinson, 2001; Skehan, 1998). Other research suggests that vocabulary can
be learned incidentally through reading, but it is affected by item frequency (Hulstijn,
Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996), topic familiarity (Pulido, 2003, 2004), measurement (Hulstijn
et al., 1996; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999), as well as task (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Swanborn, &
de Glopper, 2002). So far research on task and SLA has not been fully benefited from the
current theory and research on the cognitive processes of text comprehension and
representation.
The present study is set up to investigate the effect of task on learning from a L2 text by
manipulating the allocation of cognitive attention during text processing and retrieval from text
memory. More specifically, at the time of encoding the subjects were informed about a later
recall of the content of the text by using L1 or L2. At the time of retrieval/output, they were
asked to write everything that they remember of the content of the text by using L1 or L2.
There were three encoding-retrieval combinations used in the study. In the L1-only condition,
the subjects were informed of a later L1 recall (and thereby encouraged to pay attention to
content during encoding) and later wrote their recall in L1. In the L1-L2 condition, they were
informed of a later L1 recall, but later were asked to write their recall in L2 (and thereby forced
to produce L2 forms during retrieval/recall). In the L2-only condition, they were informed of
L2 recall (and thereby encouraged to pay attention to L2 forms during encoding) and later wrote
L2 recall. Predictions were made that these task conditions will induce different modes of
processing during encoding and retrieval/output, which influence the learning outcomes.
TBLT2005 Proceedings 2
Study
Research questions
Q1. Does task affect text comprehension?
Q2. Does task affect vocabulary acquisition that takes place through text comprehension?
Q3. Does task affect the relationship between text comprehension and vocabulary acquisition?
Q4. Does topic familiarity (represented by major) interact with task?
Q5. Does text topic interact with task?
Q6. Does general L2 competence (measured with TOEFL and VLT) interact with task?
Method
Design of the study. Independent variables are three reader variables (major, general L2
competence, vocabulary knowledge), one text variable (topic), and one task variable (the
encoding-retrieval/output condition). Dependent variables are the understanding of the content
of text (measured with recall) and the acquisition of target words contained in the text
(measured with a vocabulary acquisition test
Subjects. A total of 145 EFL college students in Japan (70 nursing and 75 non-nursing
majors) participated in the study on a voluntary basis.
Task conditions. In the L1-only condition, they were informed of a later L1 recall and later
recalled L1 recall. In the L1-L2 condition, they were informed of L1 recall but later produced
L2 recall. In the L2-only condition, they were informed of L2 recall and later produced L2
recall.
Materials. Two short narrative passages, the Hope” text (427 words, 59 events) and the
“Decision” text (425 words, 48 sentences), were used. They were stories about a patient and his
medical care, and were expected to be more familiar to the nursing majors than to the
non-nursing majors. Each passage contained 25 unfamiliar words that are glossed, out of which
fifteen health/medicine-related words (e.g., pelvis, chemotherapy) were selected as the targets.
Measures. Text comprehension was measured with a recall test. Vocabulary acquisition
was measured with productive and receptive tests: production-in-isolation (i.e., L1 to L2
translation), production-in-context (i.e., L1 to L2 production in the original sentential context),
form-recognition (i.e., “Did the word appear in the text?”), and meaning-recognition (i.e., L2 to
L1 translation). As part of the test, the subjects were asked to indicate whether or not they had
known each of the target words prior to the reading task. General L2 competence was measured
with a TOEFL-ITP test (structure and reading sections) and a Vocabulary Levels test (Nation,
2001).
Procedure. First, the subjects took a TOEFL-ITP test, and then took the read-and-recall test.
Prior to the reading of a test passage, they practiced the read-and-recall procedure with a
practice passage. Those in the L1-only and the L1-L2 condition practiced recalling in their L1,
whereas those in the L2-only condition practiced recalling in their L2. After the recall task,
they took a vocabulary acquisition test. Last, they took a Vocabulary Levels test.
Analysis. Recall protocols were scored for the percentage of events recalled for each
passage. Interrater reliability was .93; all the discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
Responses for the vocabulary acquisition test were scored by using two scoring criteria (i.e.,
full score and full-and-partial combined score, except for the form-recognition subtest).
Interrater reliability was 1.00. Responses for the VLT were scored by using predetermined
answer keys. Interrater reliability was 1.00. Responses for the TOEFL-ITP were scored by the
TOEFL-ITP office.
Results and discussion
General L2 competence
TBLT2005 Proceedings 3
The TOEFL scores indicate that the nonnursing majors (M = 72.1, SD = 7.4) were
significantly more proficient than the nursing majors (M = 65.7, SD = 7.5). Similarly, the VLT
scores show that the nonnursing majors (M = 77.0, SD = 15.7) had significantly better
vocabulary knowledge than the nursing majors (M = 67.5, SD = 14.8). For each test, there were
no significant effect of task condition and text topic; therefore the subjects within major were
equally distributed across task condition and text topic.
Recall
Overall the nursing majors (M = 33.3, SD = 20.5) and the nonnursing majors (M = 32.9, SD
= 19.1) performed similarly to each other. Both groups recalled the “Decision” text (Nursing:
M = 42.9, SD = 23.0; Nonnursing: M = 43.0, SD = 19.3) better than the “Hope” text (Nursing:
M = 24.8, SD = 13.2; Nonnursing: M = 23.1, SD = 13.0). Both groups performed much better
in the L1-only condition (Nursing: M = 48.9, SD = 22.0; Nonnursing: M = 40.2, SD = 18.4),
compared with the L1-L2 condition (Nursing: M = 27.8, SD = 16.1; Nonnursing: M = 29.4, SD
= 20.0) and the L2-only condition (Nursing: M = 22.8, SD = 11.9; Nonnursing: M = 29.2, SD =
17.5). Three-way ANOVA revealed that major was not a significant factor in recall (F[1,133]
= .03, n.s.), but that text topic (F[1,133] = 58.08, p < .0001) significantly affected recall.
Furthermore, the main effect of task (F[2,133] = 22.87, p < .0001) and the two-way interaction
effect of major and task (F[2,133] = 3.36, p < .04) were also found to be significant. Separate
one-way ANOVA revealed that, regardless of major, the L1-only condition lead to significantly
better recall than the L1-L2 and the L2-only condition, while the latter two conditions did not
differ significantly. Other two-way and three-way interactions were nonsignificant.
These findings indicate that major, task condition, and text topic all influenced how much
content was learned from the text.
Vocabulary acquisition
The number of target words was adjusted for each subject based on the results of the
prior-knowledge question included in the test. The adjusted number of target words ranged
from ten to fifteen, and the nursing majors (M = 12.8, SD = 1.6) had 1.6 fewer targets than the
nonnursing majors (M = 14.4, SD = .9).
The major findings about the vocabulary acquisition test (based on the full-and-partial
combined scores) (Table 1) are as follows: First, the nursing majors scored higher than the
nonnursing majors for three out of the four subtests. Three-way ANOVA for each subtest
revealed that the less-competent nursing majors indeed performed significantly better than the
nonnursing majors for two out of the four subtests. Second, text topic affected the degree of
vocabulary acquisition. The vocabulary acquisition scores were significantly higher for the
more difficult “Hope” text than the easier “Decision” text, regardless of the subtest. Third, in
contrast to the results of recall, the L2-only condition scored significantly higher than the
L1-only and the L1-L2 condition on vocabulary acquisition, regardless of the kind of subtest.
There were no significant two-way and three-way interactions.
Table 1. Means of the vocabulary acquisition test scores for major and task condition
Type of subtest
Task
Major
ProductionProductionForm
Meaning
condition
in-isolation
in-context
recognition
recognition
L1-only
.46
.88
3.04
3.63
Nursing
L1-L2
.52
.87
2.83
2.87
L2-only
1.48
1.74
4.04
5.52
L1-only
.08
.48
3.04
1.32
Nonnursing
L1-L2
.16
.28
3.72
1.56
TBLT2005 Proceedings 4
Total
L2-only
L1-only
L1-L2
L2-only
.40
.27
.33
.92
1.12
.67
.56
1.42
5.12
3.04
3.29
4.60
2.28
2.45
2.19
4.83
L2 competence, recall, and vocabulary acquisition
In order to capture a general picture of the relationship between the reader's L2 competence
and text comprehension, L2 competence and vocabulary acquisition, and text comprehension
and vocabulary acquisition, correlations were analyzed between each two variables (Table 3).
As expected, there were significant modest correlations between L2 competence scores (i.e.,
TOEFL and VLT) and recall. But unexpectedly, there were no correlations between recall and
vocabulary acquisition scores. As for the relationship between L2 competence and vocabulary
acquisition, there were significant low correlations between general L2 proficiency (i.e., VLT)
and three out of the four vocabulary acquisition scores. But L2 vocabulary knowledge (i.e.,
TOEFL) had significant low correlation with only one out of the four vocabulary acquisition
scores.
Table 3. Correlation matrix for TOEFL, VLT, recall, vocabulary acquisition
(production-in-isolation, production-in-context, form-recognition, and meaning).
Form recog
Prod in
context
Recall
L2 competence
TOEFL
VLT
1
.70 ****
1
Text
comprehension
Recall
.35 ****
.31 ***
1
.00
.16
.02
1
.03
.21 *
.05
.74 ****
1
.17 *
.22 **
-.07
.27 ***
.31 ***
1
.04
.22 **
.05
.72 ****
.66 ****
.38 ****
Vocabulary
acquisition
Production in
isolation
Production in
context
Form
recognition
Meaning
recognition
Mean recog
Vocabulary acquisition
Prod in
isolation
Text comp
VLT
TOEFL
L2 competence
1
* p ＜ .05, ** p ＜ .01, *** p ＜ .001, **** p ＜ .0001
Stepwise regression analyses were conducted for each vocabulary acquisition subtest in
order to examine which variable(s) among major, task condition, text topic, L2 competence
(TOEFL and VLT), and recall can explain vocabulary acquisition. It was revealed that in
general a significant portion of the variance in the vocabulary acquisition test scores was
accounted for by VLT, in addition to major and/or topic. Thus, these findings indicate that these
variables, major, text topic, task condition, and vocabulary knowledge, all affect learning
vocabulary through reading.
Overall these findings seem to suggest that the reader’s topic familiarity (i.e., major), as well
as language competence (i.e., general L2 proficiency and vocabulary knowledge), interacts
with the effect of task condition, leading to different learning outcomes (i.e., recall and
vocabulary acquisition). It is also to note that there may be a conflict between understanding
the content of a text and learning new words during reading of the text for these linguistically
limited L2 readers. As for task condition, the L1-only group learned the content of the text
better than the other two groups, but they did not learn the target words contained in the text as
TBLT2005 Proceedings 5
much as the L2-only group. The L2-only group learned the least amount of the text’s content,
though they learned the target words most. As for text topic, the target words in the more
difficult passage were learned better than the targets in the easier passage. These finding,
interesting but troublesome, are presumably related to the effect of allocation of attention to
linguistic vs. conceptual processing during text processing and retrieval of text memory.
References
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity, and reading
topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? The Modern Language Journal, 82,
176-199.
Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationship between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic
threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15-34.
Cote, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, F. U. (1998). Student making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and
representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
Donin, J., & Silva, M. (1993). The relationship between first- and second-language reading comprehension of
occupation-specific text. Language Learning, 43, 373-401.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Owen, P. D., & Cote, N. C. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material
appropriate processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 566-581.
Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Horiba, Y. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task. Discourse Processes, 29,
223-267.
Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The
influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80,
327-339.
Hulstijn, J. J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition.
Language Learning, 51, 539-558.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced
involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26.
Lee, J. W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading
performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713-739.
McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (1989). Material appropriate processing: A contextualistic approach to reading and
studying strategies. Educational Psychological Review, 1, 113-145.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical
inferencing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 195-224.
Pulido, D. (2003). Modeling the role of second language proficiency and topic familiarity in second language incidental
vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Learning, 53, 233-284.
Pulido, D. (2004). The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental vocabulary acquisition: A
matter of topic familiarity? Language Learning, 54, 469-523.
Robinson, P. (Ed.) (2001). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (2002). Impact of reading purpose on incidental word learning from context. Language
Learning, 52, 95-117.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsh, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effects of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 20, 920-933.
Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation model
construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289-327.