Cover not available

Article published In: TASK
Vol. 1:1 (2021) ► pp.100–126

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Learning vocabulary in spoken input- and output-based tasks

 | KU Leuven, imec research group itec, Belgium
ORCiD logo with link | Ghent University, Belgium
ORCiD logo with link | KU Leuven, imec research group itec, Belgium
ORCiD logo with link | KU Leuven, Belgium
Published online: 27 May 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.00005.duo
Abstract
This experimental study explores the differential effects of spoken input-based and output-based tasks on vocabulary knowledge. The study also investigates whether such tasks result in more learning gains than exposure to input-only (no subsequent task). The study employed a pretest-posttest design with two groups: an experimental group (n = 32) who completed both input- and output-based tasks in a counterbalanced way and a comparison group (n = 12) who were only exposed to L2 input. Vocabulary gains were measured at three levels of sensitivity: oral spontaneous use, oral form recall and meaning recall. The findings showed that participants who were only exposed to L2 input learned significantly fewer words than participants who completed the input-based and output-based tasks. No difference in learning gains was found between the input-based and output-based tasks.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Output-based tasks
    • Input-based tasks
    • L2 vocabulary learning from L2 input and input followed up by activities
    • Research rationale and research questions
  • Methodology
    • Design
    • Participants
    • Learning materials and target items
    • Input
    • Input-based tasks
    • Output-based tasks
    • Target items
  • Test instruments
    • Vocabulary size test
    • Vocabulary knowledge tests
  • Procedure
  • Scoring and analysis
  • Results
    • Prior vocabulary knowledge
    • Learners’ responses to target items during input- and output-based tasks performance
    • Research question 1: Can words be learned from doing input-based tasks, output-based tasks, and input-only with no tasks?
    • Research question 2: Is there a difference in the effectiveness of input-based tasks, output-based tasks, and input-only on vocabulary learning?
  • Discussion
    • Effects of input- only on L2 vocabulary learning in comparison to input-based and output-based tasks
    • L2 vocabulary learning from input-based tasks and output-based tasks
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (42)
References
Baltova, I. (1999). Multisensory language teaching in a multidimensional curriculum: The use of authentic bimodal video in core French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 561, 32–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beglar, D. (2010). A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test. Language Testing, 27(1),101–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 461, 904–911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duong, P. T., Montero Perez, M., Desmet, P., & Peters, E. (in press). Differential effects of input-based and output-based tasks on L2 vocabulary learning. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 441, 449–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erlam, R., & R. Ellis. (2018). Input-based tasks for beginner-level learners: An approximate replication and extension of Erlam & Ellis (2018). Language Teaching, 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, M., & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(2), 87–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loschky, L. & R. Bley-Vroman. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jin, Z., & Webb, S. (2020). Incidental vocabulary learning through listening to teacher talk. Modern Language Journal, 104(3), 550–566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R., & Williams, J. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In R. Manchón & P. Matsuda (Eds.), The handbook of second language writing (pp. 567–586). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary instruction worth-while? RELC ournal, 35(2), 179–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEnery, T. (2006). Swearing in English: Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Min, H-T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58(1), 73–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montero Perez, M., Peters, E., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2014). Effects of captioning on video comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 118–141.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 161, 519–533. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P., & Heatley, A. (1994). Range: A program for the analysis of vocabulary in texts [Computer software]. [URL]
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, L. T. C., & Nation, I. S. P. (2011). A bilingual vocabulary size test of English for Vietnamese learners. RELC Journal, 42(1), 86–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, C. D. & Boers, F. (2018). The effect of content retelling on vocabulary uptake from a TED Talk. TESOL Quarterly. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pellicer-Sánchez, A. & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do Things Fall Apart? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 31–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, E. (2019). The effect of imagery and on-screen text on foreign language vocabulary learning from audivisual input. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 1008–1032. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, E., Heynen, E., Puimège, E. (2016). Learning vocabulary through audiovisual input: The differential effect of L1 subtitles and captions. System, 631, 134–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, E., Hulstijn, J. H., Sercu, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning, 59(1), 113–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, E., & Webb, S. (2018). Incidental vocabulary acquisition through viewing L2 television and factors that affect learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 551–577. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 73–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2017). Replication in task-based language teaching research: Kim (2012) and Shintani (2012). Language Teaching, 52(3), 374–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77–101). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 137–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young, beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 115–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2007). ‘Oh, I get it now!’ From production to comprehension in second language learning. In D. M. Brinton & O. Kagan (Eds.), Heritage language acquisition: A new field emerging (pp. 301–319). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vidal, K. (2011). A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 219–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63(1), 91–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rodgers, M., & Webb, S. (2020). Incidental vocabulary learning through viewing television. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 171(2), 191–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2010). The effects of captioning videos used for foreign language listening activities. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 65–86. [URL]
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Cárdenas‐Claros, Mónica S., Kimberley Dassonvalle, Paula Rodríguez‐Arias & Belén Cáceres‐Ramírez
2025. Considerations for the Design of Pedagogical Tasks in Computer‐Based L2 Listening. TESOL Quarterly 59:3 ► pp. 1534 ff. DOI logo
Deng, Taiping & Qing Feng
2025. Comprehension-oriented input training and syntactic representation entrenchment of late L2 learners: Evidence from a longitudinal experimental study. International Journal of Bilingualism DOI logo
Montero-Pérez, Maribel
2025. The impact of multimodal input tools in instructed second language acquisition (and beyond). In Technology and Instructed Second Language Acquisition [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 63], ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Bourgoin, Renée & Josée Le Bouthillier
2023. A task-based framework for oral language instruction in support of young language learners in French immersion. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 3:1 ► pp. 74 ff. DOI logo
Duong, Phuong-Thao, Maribel Montero Perez, Long-Quoc Nguyen, Piet Desmet & Elke Peters
2023. The impact of input, input repetition, and task repetition on L2 lexical use and fluency in speaking. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 13:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Nguyen, Long Quoc & Ha Van Le
2023. Enhancing L2 learners’ lexical gains via Quizlet learning tool: the role of individual differences. Education and Information Technologies 28:9 ► pp. 12143 ff. DOI logo
KARADAĞ, Bilal Ferhat & Ali GÖÇER
2022. Türkçenin İkinci Dil Olarak Öğretiminde Konuşma Becerisinin Görev Temelli Öğretim Yöntemi ile Geliştirilmesi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 24:3 ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Duong, P.T., M. Montero Perez, L.Q. Nguyen, P. Desmet & E. Peters
2021. Incidental lexical mining in task repetition: The role of input, input repetition and individual differences. System 103 ► pp. 102650 ff. DOI logo
Vu, Duy Van & Elke Peters
2021. Vocabulary in English Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing in Vietnam: A Review. Education Sciences 11:9 ► pp. 563 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue