Toward a WeChat-supported MALL approach for improving productive vocabulary learning : an enhanced involvement load hypothesis perspective

Abstract

Productive vocabulary refers to the ability to retrieve and apply words in speaking and writing. It enables English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners to express themselves accurately and fluently. Although the Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) has predicted that the tasks with higher involvement would result in better productive vocabulary learning, the effect of the task-induced involvement appears to be transitory. In other words, students’ productive vocabulary often fades over time, as shown in the delayed-post productive vocabulary tests. To address the gap in productive vocabulary research, this study examined whether there is an advantage for the task-induced involvement combined with vocabulary-use knowledge over the task-induced involvement alone for productive vocabulary performance. The author thus designed two WeChat applets (Applet 0.0 and Applet 1.0). The design of Applet 0.0 was directed solely by the task-induced involvement, whereas Applet 1.0 was based on the task-induced involvement supplemented with vocabulary-use knowledge, with the latter consisting of grammatical functions (the grammatical patterns that a word can fit into), collocations (other words that appear together with a word), and constraints on use (the situations in which a word is used). An experiment was conducted in a course called English Reading and Writing at a university in mainland China. A total of 51 undergraduate Chinese-speaking EFL learners from two classes learned under two instructional approaches, including a class learning with Applet 0.0 (control group, CG, n = 26) and a class learning with Applet 1.0 (experimental group, EG, n = 25). A mixed method approach, which used quantitative (e.g., tests, assignments, and language proficiency levels) and qualitative (e.g., student survey responses and teacher reflections) methods was applied. It was hypothesized that vocabulary-use knowledge might be a useful supplement to the task-induced involvement in improving students’ productive mastery of vocabulary. With that in mind, this study asked the following questions. 1) Is there a difference in productive vocabulary performance between the students in the experimental versus control group? 2) Do students’ language proficiency levels affect their productive vocabulary improvement differently in each group? 3) What are the experimental group students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the task-induced involvement supplemented with the vocabulary-use knowledge? For example, what do they perceive as its benefits and drawbacks and what suggestions do they have for its improvement? The quantitative results of the study indicated that the task-induced involvement supplemented with the vocabulary-use knowledge was more effective than the task-induced involvement alone, in terms of productive vocabulary acquisition. Moreover, the productive vocabulary improvement was generally similar between students of lower and higher language proficiency levels. The qualitative results demonstrated that students from the experimental group and teachers held a positive attitude towards the training. As a corollary, this study contributes to our knowledge of how the ILH could be enhanced to help in designing tasks to improve productive vocabulary performance. The author thus encourages future researchers to examine other frameworks for predicting, improving or sustaining students’ productive vocabulary learning.