CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 1 Vocabulary Learning Through Extensive Reading: A Case Study Yasuko Senoo McGill University Kazuhiro Yonemoto Tokyo Medical and Dental University Abstract The role and importance of reading in second language vocabulary learning have been discussed by many researchers because of the richness and variety of vocabulary in written texts compared to oral discourse (Horst, 2005; Nation, 2001). However, despite the recent increase of studies in this field, there are very few studies focusing on non-Western languages, including Japanese, compared to Indo-European languages. To fill the gap, this study explored the process of Japanese vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. Data were collected through a pretest, eight immediate tests, a posttest, and a semistructured interview. The results indicate that extensive reading is especially beneficial in consolidating learners’ vocabulary knowledge and in encouraging learners to reflect on their interests and needs in vocabulary learning. Résumé Le rôle et l’importance de la lecture dans l’apprentissage du vocabulaire en langue seconde sont sujets de discussion pour de nombreux chercheurs en raison de la richesse et de la variété de la langue écrite en comparaison au discours oral (Horst, 2005 ; Nation, 2001). Toutefois, malgré la récente hausse d’études effectuées dans ce domaine, très peu d’études se concentrent sur les langues non-occidentales, incluant le japonais, en comparaison aux langues indo-européennes. Pour combler cette lacune, cette étude a exploré le processus d’acquisition du vocabulaire en japonais par la lecture assidue. Les données ont été recueillies grâce à un pré-test, huit tests immédiats, un post-test et une entrevue semi- structurée. Les résultats indiquent que la lecture assidue est particulièrement bénéfique pour la consolidation du vocabulaire des apprenants et pour encourager les apprenants à réfléchir à leurs intérêts et à leurs besoins dans l’apprentissage du vocabulaire. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22 CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 2 Vocabulary Learning Through Extensive Reading: A Case Study Introduction In the past, despite the importance of vocabulary in communication, the field of vocabulary acquisition had been neglected until the late 1980s. In light of some of the shortcomings of communicative language teaching and the underlying assumption that second language (L2) vocabulary can be developed through natural, communicative exposure as in first language (L1) vocabulary development, some researchers started to notice that vocabulary acquisition is a central aspect of language learning and an enormous task. With the growth of classroom-centred research, we now see the reality that, “not only do the majority of students studying foreign languages cite vocabulary as their number one priority, but it is often considered a priority by teachers as well” (Knight, 1994, p. 285). This is why the issue of how to better acquire L2 vocabulary has increasingly drawn the attention of learners and teachers. Vocabulary Acquisition Through Extensive Reading Over the past decade, the role and importance of reading in L2 vocabulary learning have been discussed by many researchers because of the richness and variety of vocabulary in written texts compared to oral discourse (Horst, 2005; Nation, 2001). On the pedagogical level, one of the major focuses on reading in L2 learning is the extensive reading (ER) approach. According to Day and Bamford (1998), Palmer first applied this term in foreign language pedagogy in the early 20th century to distinguish it from intensive reading (IR), which is reading word for word; and in Palmer’s view, ER is “real-world reading but for a pedagogical purpose” (p. 5). Although the reader’s attention is not on the language but the content, so that the texts are read for pleasure and information, reading in the ER approach is planned for the purpose of language learning. With the rise of Krashen’s (1981) input hypothesis, the ER approach has attracted many L2 researchers and practitioners, especially in foreign language learning settings such as English learning in Japan. Proponents of ER have suggested its possible benefits, and previous studies of ER have supported some of these suggestions. Learners showed improvement in their performance on tests of reading comprehension (e.g., Bell, 2001; Hafiz & Tudor, 1989; Hitosugi & Day, 2004; Leung, 2002) and writing (e.g., Hafiz & Tudor, 1989, 1990). Also, some learners showed their motivation for learning and reading increased after ER treatment (e.g., Camiciottoli, 2001; Hitosugi & Day, 2004; Leung, 2002; Renandya, Rajan, & Jacobs, 1999; Yamashita, 2004). It seems that the effectiveness of ER is widely accepted as a fact among L2 researchers; thus, there are not many counterarguments about whether ER promotes L2 learning or not. However, with regard to vocabulary, there are still several areas that have not been fully investigated. First of all, only a few past studies have investigated learners’ vocabulary growth through an actual ER program (e.g., Horst, 2005; Leung, 2002; Lightbown, Halter, White, & Horst, 2002) because of the real-world reading nature of ER. Although ER is a part of language learning pedagogy, it is also, at the same time, a part of learners’ real lives (reading for pleasure). Therefore, it is difficult to control or remove the influences from other sources. Considering this difficulty, in the past, many researchers have examined the relationship between vocabulary learning and reading The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22 CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 3 instead of measuring vocabulary growth through ER (e.g., Day, Omura, & Hiramatsu, 1991; Moroishi Wei, 2006; Pitts, White, & Krashen, 1989; Waring & Takaki, 2003). In these studies, researchers chose the reading materials; and some studies did not have pretests with words that appeared in the reading material (i.e., researchers administered a general vocabulary test only). Therefore, to date, the extent to which ER actually promotes L2 vocabulary acquisition is still debatable. Secondly, research on reading/ER has devoted little attention to the motivational dimension of learning. In spite of the positive results from numerous studies of the effect of reading/ER on vocabulary growth (e.g., Day et al., 1991; Horst, 2005; Lightbown et al., 2002; Pitts et al., 1989; Waring & Takaki, 2003), most of these found the amount of growth to be small. Also, some comparison studies showed that learners in a reading-plus condition performed better than learners in a reading-only condition (e.g., Laufer, 2003; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997). In the former, learners were required to engage in tasks that “consisted of reading a text and doing a range of vocabulary exercises based on the text” (Laufer, 2003, p. 574). These results can be explained by Laufer and Hulstijn’s (2001) involvement load hypothesis which suggests that the degree of the learner’s involvement with three motivational and cognitive dimensions—need, search, and evaluation—greatly influences L2 vocabulary learning through reading. Learners will successfully acquire a new word on the condition that they: (a) feel a need to know the meaning of the word, (b) search for the meaning by themselves, and (c) compare different meanings of the word and check these meanings against the context before selecting one. This proposal tells us that: (a) if learners do not pay attention to the word, and do not feel a need to learn it, it cannot be learned (e.g., Huckin & Coady, 1999; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999); and (b) only when learners feels a need/desire to understand the text and believe that the unfamiliar word is key to comprehension, does they commit themselves to the activity of lexical inferencing (i.e., guessing the meaning of the word from the context; e.g., Laufer, 2003; Nation, 2001). Therefore, the type of text in terms of learners’ interest and prior knowledge of the topic plays an important role in motivation for vocabulary learning. Nation (2001) expressed the importance of real world knowledge to inferencing. If the topic is somehow related to learners’ real life (life experience), they can use existing schema to infer the meanings of the unfamiliar words. When the text reflects life experience, learners can be motivated to proceed to lexical inferencing. These two meditating variables indicate that the genre/topic of the text is a potentially influential motivating factor for comprehending the text and furthering vocabulary learning through reading. However, despite this recognition of the importance of the genre/topic, in the field of vocabulary acquisition research the focus has traditionally been more on the effectiveness of vocabulary learning approaches (i.e., numerical outcomes). Many earlier studies have sought effective ways of vocabulary learning, focusing on the relation between the number of words acquired and external factors such as amount of exposure (e.g., Laufer, 2003; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997) through quantitative approaches. The number of studies that have focused on internal factors such as motivation, learners’ needs, and learners’ aspirations, however, is limited. At this moment, to our knowledge, no research has been done on the process of vocabulary acquisition through ER while considering learners’ choices regarding the words to which they attended in order to infer word meanings (i.e., what types of words the learner tries to know and why, when given the flexibility of choice such as in ER). The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22 CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 4 The other gap in the current research on vocabulary learning through ER/reading is in the minimal number of target languages studied. Despite the recent increase of studies in this field, there are very few studies focusing on non-Western languages, including Japanese, compared to Indo-European languages. Evidence supporting theories about vocabulary acquisition through ER/reading comes mainly from studies focusing on English language learning; the amount of reading research targeting languages other than English is quite small. Only a few studies (e.g., Leung, 2002; Moroishi Wei, 2006) exist regarding Japanese learning, reflecting its complex writing system. This absence limits the number of available reading materials for learners and discourages teachers from incorporating ER/reading, as a vocabulary learning and teaching method, into their courses. In Japanese second language education, most teacher’s manuals (e.g., Matsumi, 2002; Sasaki, 1994) devote a lot of space to methods of teaching vocabulary, whether utilizing pictures, sounds, or collocations. However, looking at these existing teaching methods as featured in the teacher’s manuals, vocabulary learning in the classroom appears to be biased toward intentional learning, simply relying on learners’ efforts at memorization. In order to help fill in these gaps, the present study explored the process of Japanese vocabulary learning through ER in comparison with intensive reading, looking closely at one learner by utilizing quantitative and qualitative approaches. More specifically, focusing on the perspective of a learner/reader, the present study asks: 1. What are the actual processes and outcomes of a Japanese learner's vocabulary acquisition through ER (e.g., the number of words acquired, the development of vocabulary knowledge, and the relation between word frequency and acquisition) 2. What is the learner’s perception of vocabulary learning and ER? Method Participant The participant in this study was one male student enrolled in a university in eastern Canada. Since this study examined the features of language acquisition through ER in comparison with intensive reading, to minimize the effects of individual differences such as learning history and background, only one student was solicited through the researchers’ personal connection. Due to the multicultural and multiethnic environment in which he had grown up, the participant was a balanced trilingual who had three first languages: Finnish, French, and English. Since he had also learned Chinese before, Japanese was either his fourth or fifth language to learn. While his proficiency in Japanese at the time of the study was at an intermediate level according to the placement exam at the university, he had a good variety of vocabulary and expressions used in daily life. This is because he had studied Japanese for four years, one of which was spent in Japan studying at a language school. More specifically, while there were mistakes in his grammar and vocabulary, the participant could conduct any informal activities in Japanese without difficulty, such as conversing with friends, chatting on the Internet, writing a casual letter, reading comics, watching TV programs, and so forth. However, in formal settings such as writing a report, summarizing a newspaper article, or giving a presentation, he appeared to be able to fully communicate only about familiar topics. Due to his lack of a high level of accuracy, he had difficulties conveying messages without misunderstanding, confusion, or delay. According to an official reference, in the previous year he passed Level 3 of the Japanese-Language The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22 CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 5 Proficiency Test (JLPT), the most popular standardized test of Japanese proficiency (see Figure 1). There are five levels of difficulty in JLPT with Level 5 being the most basic and Level 1 being the most advanced level. The ability to understand Japanese used in everyday situations to a certain degree. Reading • One is able to read and understand written materials with specific contents concerning everyday topics. • One is also able to grasp summary information such as news paper headlines. • In addition, one is also able to read slightly difficult writings encountered in everyday situations and understand the main points of the content if some alternative phrases are available to aid one’s understanding. Writing • In addition, one is also able to read slightly difficult writings encountered in everyday situations and understand the main points of the content if some alternative phrases are available to aid one’s understanding. • One is able to listen and comprehend coherent conversations in everyday situations, spoken at near-natural speed, and is generally able to follow their contents as well as grasp the relationships among the people involved. Figure 1. A summary of linguistic competence required for Level 3 (JLPT, n.d.). The participant reported that he enjoys going to his Aikido club and watching Japanese TV programs on the Internet. His outgoing personality allowed him to take part in various cultural and social activities related to Japan outside and inside of the campus. Procedures The data were collected over three months. Upon the participant’s agreement to take part in the study, he was asked to write a background questionnaire and self-report vocabulary knowledge pretest, and then he was engaged in IR and ER concurrently for eight weeks. The participant received instruction on one chapter of the IR reading material (there is an average of 1950 Japanese characters per chapter) per week focusing on reading comprehension (a one-hour session) and read one chapter of the ER reading material (average 7250 characters/chapter) every two weeks with no instruction. The length of Japanese text is expressed in the number of characters (e.g., The following: 一口飲んだコ ーヒーはとても苦かった。[A sip of coffee tasted really bitter.] consists of six words, but it is counted as 17 characters). The reading materials used in these sessions were: “Minami” kara no kokusaikyouryoku [International Cooperation From “South”] by Watanabe (1997) for IR, and Shounen H [A Boy Called H] by Seno (1999) for ER. The IR reading material was selected and provided by an instructor based on the participant’s Japanese proficiency; the ER reading material was selected and used by the participant according to his interests. The difficulty levels of both texts were determined as Difficult, which is the highest level, by a Japanese language reading tutorial online system, Reading Tutor. This online system determines text difficulty according to the proportion of the JLPT vocabulary that corresponds to Level 5 (Beginner) or Level 4 (Upper-beginner). Texts containing the The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22 CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 6 highest proportion of Level 4-5 vocabulary are considered to be the easiest and those with the least Level 4-5 vocabulary, the most difficult. Table 1 Text Difficulty Proportion of JLPT Level 4-5a vocabulary Difficulty level of the text More than 80% Very easy 70% - 80% Easy 60% - 70% General 50% - 60% Somewhat difficult Less than 50% Difficult Note. Adopted from http://language.tiu.ac.jp/materials/goichecker.html. aJLPT difficulty: Level 5 = Beginner, Level 4 = Upper-beginner, Level 3 = Intermediate, Level 2 = Upper-intermediate, Level 1 = Advanced. Considering the participant’s proficiency level, it would appear that the difficulty level of these reading materials was a little higher than his comprehension level. According to Renandya and Jacobs (2002), one of the basic characteristics of a successful ER program is that learners read large amounts of material. In this respect, ER in this study differed from existing ER in that it did not follow this particular basic characteristic. There were two reasons for not reading large amount of materials. First, we placed importance on the motivational and cognitive dimensions of learning. Another basic characteristic of successful ER programs suggested by Renandya and Jacobs, is that the reading material is near or even a little below the learner’s level of comprehension. However, in this study, the participant chose a book that was more difficult than his level at that time. In order to focus on the motivational influence on vocabulary learning, we decided to keep his choice and to balance the difficulty of the text with the amount of reading. The other reason for not following this particular basic characteristic of ER in this study was related to a physical limitation. At the time of the study, the participant was concurrently engaging in IR as part of a credit course, and it was difficult for him to read more than 6000 characters per week in total. The participant seemed to feel pressured and that he could not read for “enjoyment” if he was required to read more than one chapter every two weeks of the book he chose. During this 8-week period, the participant wrote the immediate vocabulary test every two weeks, a total of four tests. The immediate vocabulary test was given in order to check the participant’s knowledge of words that he encountered in reading materials (i.e., two chapters for IR and one chapter for ER) during the previous two weeks. One week after the last immediate test, a cumulative post-vocabulary test was administered. Based on the results from a pretest, immediate tests, and a posttest, a semistructured face-to-face interview was conducted two weeks after the posttest. Most parts of this study were conducted in Japanese, but English was used intermittently for explanation and instruction. The qualitative method, mainly interviewing, was used to facilitate our understanding of the quantitative data obtained in the three tests by merging both types of data during the interpretation stage. The act of employing multiple ways of approaching the field is called The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22 CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 7 triangulation. This helps not only to deepen our understanding, but also to increase the validity of results. Instruments For data collection, this study used a vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire, background questionnaire, self-report vocabulary knowledge pretest, immediate vocabulary test, vocabulary knowledge posttest, and semistructured face-to-face interview (for the vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire and background questionnaire, see Appendix A and Appendix B). The self-report vocabulary knowledge pretest was adapted from Wesche and Paribakht’s (1996) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). While the VKS uses a 5-point scale in order to classify vocabulary knowledge, our pretest (see Figure 2) categorizes vocabulary used in Level 2 of the JLPT into four states of knowledge: 1. I definitely don’t know what this word means, 2. I am not really sure what this word means, 3. I think I know what this word means, and 4. I definitely know what this word means.   Please  tick  the  box  that  applies  to  your  answer.   1.  I  definitely  don't  know  what  this  word  means.   2.  I  am  not  really  sure  what  this  word  means.   3.  I  think  I  know  what  this  word  means.   4.  I  definitely  know  what  this  word  means.     狙い ねらい □1 □2 □3 □4   [target] Figure 2. Excerpt from the self-report vocabulary knowledge pretest showing the four states of vocabulary used. Adapted from Wesche and Paribakht’s (1996) VKS. As for the selection of target items for the immediate vocabulary test, the main criteria were that: (a) the words were designated as “low” (i.e., rated as 1 or 2) by the participant in the pretest, and (b) the words appeared only in either the IR reading material or the ER reading material, but not in both. However, because of the nature of incidental learning and the amount of reading, there was a limited number of words that fulfilled both of these conditions. Therefore, we also included some words that were rated as 3 or 4 in a pool of target items. This method of selection is also based on the idea underlying Meara’s (1989) matrix model, which is that vocabulary acquisition is not a simple continuum between passive and active vocabulary and that, “lexicons are fluid structures that change, not rigid and inflexible” (Horst & Meara, 1999, p. 313). In this model, each word is seen to be in one of several states, and knowledge of the word is considered as “movement” between these states. Thus, in the process of vocabulary acquisition, the direction of the change in vocabulary knowledge is not limited. Vocabulary knowledge could move in the negative The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22 CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 8 direction at some point during the entire process of acquisition. Meaning, there is a possibility that some words that were rated by the participant as state 3 or 4 could move to state 1 or 2. Taking this position, we reached the decision to include those items in the pool of target items. From this pool, 20 words appearing only in the IR reading material and another 20 words appearing only in the ER reading material were selected as test items for immediate vocabulary tests. Each immediate vocabulary test contained five words from the IR material and five words from the ER material. During the test, the participant was asked to fill in the blank in each sentence with an appropriate choice, as well as to explain the meaning of the word in English (see Figure 3). ( )に入れるのに最もよいものを，１・２・３・４・から一つ選びなさい。また，その意味を に英語で書きなさい。 [Choose  the  most  appropriate  word  from  among  the  options  (1-­‐4)  given.  Write  the  meaning   of  the  word  in  English  in  the  box.]     はんにん さいしょ 犯人の( )は，最初から彼女の金だったんです。 [The criminal’s ( ) was, from the very beginning, her money.] たたか ねら はんせい けいさん １ 戦い ２ 狙い ３ 反省 ４ 計算 [fight] [target] [apology] [calculation] Figure 3. Excerpt from the immediate vocabulary test. For the vocabulary knowledge posttest, a total of 40 items were tested in a format that was, like our pretest, based on Wesche and Paribakht’s (1996) VKS. However, whereas the VKS uses a 5-point scale in order to classify vocabulary knowledge, our posttest asked the participant to select from four choices regarding the state of knowledge of each word: 1. I don’t know what this word means, 2. I have seen this word before, 3. I know this word, or 4. I can use this word in a sentence. Choices 2 and 3 also asked the participant to write the meaning in English, while choice 4 required writing a sentence in Japanese (see Figure 4). This was to evaluate not only receptive competence but also productive competence. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22 CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 9   Please  circle  the  number  that  applies  to  your  answer  for  each  word.  If  applicable,  please  also   fill  in  the  blank.   ねら [狙い] [target] 1. I  don't  know  what  this  word  means.   2. I  have  seen  this  word  before,  and  I  think  it  means   3. I  know  this  word.  It  means   (Give  the  meaning  in  English,  French,  or  your  language.)   4. I  can  use  this  word  in  a  sentence.  (Write  a  sentence.)               (If  you  choose  4,  please  also  complete  3.)   Figure 4. Excerpt from the vocabulary knowledge posttest. Adapted from Wesche and Paribakht’s (1996) VKS. Results and Discussion The numbers of words the participant claimed that he knew the meanings of on the pretest, immediate test, and posttest were counted separately and differences between those scores were calculated to see the vocabulary growth for each learning method. After that, the change in the scores of each word was explored with respect to knowledge state and frequency of encounters with the word. To explain those quantitative results, and to answer the second research question regarding the participant’s perception of vocabulary learning and ER, the transcribed interviews were analyzed qualitatively. The Process and Outcomes of Vocabulary Acquisition The results of the self-report vocabulary knowledge pretest, immediate vocabulary tests, and vocabulary posttest show the participant’s vocabulary growth for both IR and ER learning methods (see Table 2). At Time 0 (pretest), the participant claimed that he knew the meanings of five words (rated as 3 or 4) out of 20 items tested in IR and nine words out of 20 items tested in ER. These numbers increased gradually during two periods of time: Time 0-Time 1 (immediate test during the treatment), and Time 1-Time 2 (posttest after the 8-week treatment). Whereas only one word was acquired in each method during the period of Time 0-Time 1, seven words were acquired in IR and three in ER during Time 1-Time 2. In total, the participant learned eight words through IR and four words through ER. The amount of words acquired through ER was relatively small compared to that of IR. For the present study, we considered the word to be “acquired” when the participant answered the meaning of the word correctly in the immediate test, and, in the posttest, the participant rated the word as 3 or 4 and the meaning given was correct. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22 CJAL * RCLA Senoo & Yonemoto 10 Table 2 Vocabulary Growth by Time Time Time 0 Time 1 Time 2 (Pretest) (Immediate test) (Posttest) ER Score 9/20 10/20 13/20 Number of words acquired N/A 1 4 IR Score 5/20 6/20 13/20 Number of words acquired N/A 1 8 As seen in the results, through the ER method the participant acquired four words out of 11 whose meaning he claimed to be uncertain of in the pretest. Similar to the results from earlier studies, this study found the vocabulary growth through ER to be small compared to IR. However, a closer look at the development of vocabulary knowledge in this study revealed two characteristic features of ER to be considered in the relationship between the condition and the words acquired. One was that the participant’s previous knowledge state of each word did not influence the participant’s acquisition of the word, and the other was that the frequency of encounters with the word directly influenced the participant’s vocabulary acquisition without being interrupted by other external factors. This result can be explained by the condition for successful vocabulary acquisition suggested in Laufer and Hulstijn’s (2001) involvement load hypothesis. In the following sections, we will introduce and discuss the findings of our study from the motivational dimension (i.e., need and interest) on vocabulary growth related to the involvement load hypothesis. The relation between the condition and the words acquired. Although the number of words reached at state 4 (i.e., the words that the participant rated as state 1, 2, and 3 in the pretest but categorized as state 4 in the posttest) referred to as the words acquired) through ER was relatively small, we found improvement in vocabulary knowledge for all the words tested in this study regardless of the previous knowledge state (i.e., words in state 1 in the pretest moved into state 4 in the posttest, and state 2 and 3 words stayed in the same states or moved toward the positive direction). It appears that the participant’s previous knowledge state of each word did not influence his acquisition of the word in the ER method. Given that the condition for successful vocabulary acquisition involves two cognitive dimensions, search and evaluation, it seems that the participant searched for the meaning of the word and evaluated the several possible meanings considering the context, without regard to previous knowledge of the word (i.e., without considering whether the word was totally new or partially new to him). This interpretation is based on the fact that the participant emphasized the importance of guessing the meaning of a word without using a dictionary. In the interview, he stated: “本当になんか、使いたい言葉があったら、辞 書[を使う]。でもあんまり使わない。…[辞書を]見るのがだめだ” [“If I really want The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 17, 2 (2014): 1-22