Document Type : Research Articles


1 PhD Candidate in TEFL, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

2 Associate Professor in TEFL, Department of English, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

3 Associate Professor in TEFL, Department of English, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran,, Iran


To surmount the obstacles a deficient productive vocabulary retrieval places in the way of EFL teachers, the current study sought to ascertain whether or not involving trainee teachers in interactive input-output activities enhance their vocabulary retention. To this end, a convenience sample including 49 Iranian EFL trainee teachers were recruited to take part in a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest-delayed posttest study. Having been grouped into three comparison groups, the participants were exposed to the same literary texts; however, the differential treatment of the study entailed three different interaction modes (individual, collaborative, and collaborative-cooperative) and two types of input / output processing (non-reciprocal and reciprocal). A repeated measure analysis of covariance (RM ANCOVA) was performed on the participants’ achievements in the pre- post- and delayed posttest measures and the results revealed that the two groups involved in literature-based interactive (collaborative and collaborative-cooperative) reciprocal input-output activities showed significantly higher levels of vocabulary retention compared to the group exposed to literature-based individual non-reciprocal input-output tasks. Additionally, contributing to significantly higher levels of long-term retention, the collaborative-cooperative mode of interaction was found to be more effective than the collaborative one. The findings corroborated the need for including literature-based interactive input-output tasks in EFL teacher training curriculum.


Main Subjects

Article Title [فارسی]

افزایش به یادسپاری لغات انگلیسی معلمان کارآموز ایرانی با استقاده از فعالیت های تعاملی ادبیات محور مبتنی بر چرخه ورودی-خروجی

Authors [فارسی]

  • سارا صالح پور 1
  • دکتر بیوک بهنام 2
  • دکتر زهره سیفوری 3

1 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه ازاد اسلامی واحد تبریز، تبریز، ایران

2 دانشیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و زبانهای خارجه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تبریز، تبریز، ایران

3 دانشیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و زبانهای خارجه، دانشگاه ازاد اسلامی واحدعلوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران

Abstract [فارسی]

برای غلبه بر موانعی که بازیابی واژه­گان تولیدی بر سر راه معلمان زبان انگلیسی قرار میدهد، مطالعه حاضر به بررسی تاثیر استفاده از فعالیت های تعاملی چرخه ورودی-خروجی بر افزایش توانایی به یادسپاری واژگان انگلیسی میپردازد. برای این منظور، 49 معلم کار آموز ایرانی برای شرکت در یک مطالعه شبه­آزمون پیش آزمون-پس آزمون-پس آزمون تاخیری انتخاب شدند. پس از قرار گرفتن در سه گروه مقایسه ای، شرکت کنندگان توسط متون ادبی یکسان تحت سه نوع آموزش تعاملی (انفرادی، همکاری بین معلم و شاگرد، همکاری گروهی شاگردان و معلم) و دو نوع پردازش ورودی-خروجی (متقابل-غیرمتقابل) قرار گرفتند. تجزیه و تحلیل داده های تحقیق نشان داد که دو گروهی که تحت آموزش تعاملی ادبیات محور (همکاری بین معلم و شاگرد، همکاری گروهی شاگردان و معلم) مبتنی بر چرخه متقابل ورودی-خروجی قرار گرفتند در مقایسه با گروهی که در معرض فعالیت های ادبیات محور انفرادی مبتنی بر چرخه غیر متقابل ورودی-خروجی قرار گرفتند سطح بالاتری از به یادسپاری واژه­گان را نشان دادند. علاوه بر این، نتایج نشان دهنده این است که همکاری گروهی بین شاگردان و معلم، در مقایسه با همکاری شاگرد و معلم در به یادسپاری واژگان روش موثرتری به شمار می آید. یافته ها نیاز به گنجاندن فعالیت های تعاملی ادبیات محور مبتنی بر چرخه ورودی-خروجی را در برنامه درسی تربیت معلمان زبان انگلیسی تایید کرد.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • فعالیتهای مبتنی بر چرخه ورودی-خروجی
  • یادگیری تعاملی لغت
  • رویکرد ادبیات محور
  • دوره تربیت معلم
  • به یادسپاری لغات
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Ashoori, A. (2011). The impact of two instructional techniques on EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge: Flash cards versus word lists. Mextesol Journal, 35(2), 1–9.
Bulan, N., & Kasapoglu, K. (2021). An investigation of the effect of TPRS on vocabulary acquisition among third graders. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 645–662.
Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction:  Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 377–396.     
Bisson, M. J., van Heuven, W. J. B., Conklin, K., & Tunney, R. J. (2013). Incidental acquisition of foreign language vocabulary through  brief multi‐modal exposure. PLOS ONE, 8(4), 1–7.
Bobkina, J., & Romero, E. D. (2014). The use of literature and literary texts in the EFL classroom; between consensus and controversy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(2), 248–260.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. John Benjamins.
Chen, M., & Chung, J. (2008). Personalized mobile English vocabulary learning system based on item-response theory and learning memory cycle. Journal of Computer and Education, 51(2), 624–645.
Cook, V. (2013). Second language learning and language teaching (Rev. ed.).  Routledge. 
Daloğu, A. & Duzan, K. C. (2010). Cooperative learning and vocabulary retention. ORTESOL Journa1, 28, 15–21.
Dobao, A. M. F. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497–520.
Ellis, N. (2007). The associative-cognitive CREED. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 77–95). Erlbaum.
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Second language acquisition. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 409–431). DeGruyter Mouton.
Ellis, R. (1991, April). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. [Paper presentation]. The Regional Language Center Seminar, Singapore.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. John Wiley & Sons.
Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. CUP.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The  handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Blackwell.
Gass, S. M., & Alvarez Torres, M. J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 1–31.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Taylor & Francis.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B.                VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp.180–206).            Routledge.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643–679.
Hashemi, S., & Kassaian, Z. (2011). Effects of learner interaction, receptive and productive learning tasks on vocabulary acquisition: An Iranian case. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2165–2171.
Hoa, T. M., & Trang, T. T. T. (2020). Effect of the interactive whiteboard on vocabulary achievement,  vocabulary retention and learning  attitudes. Anatolian Journal of Education, 5(2), 173–186.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental learning. In P. J. L. Arnaud, & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113–125). Macmillan.
Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (1998). Current research and practice in teaching vocabulary. JALT, 22(1), 827–841.      
Kaivanpanah, Sh., Alavi, S. M., & Ravandpour, A. (2020). The effect of input    based and output-based tasks with different and identical involvement loads on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1–16.
Kayaalt, M. (2018). Mnemonic technique: An effective vocabulary teaching method to plurilingual students. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 8(5), 388–400.
Khabiri, M. & Pakzad, M. (2012). The effect of teaching critical reading strategies on EFL learners’ vocabulary retention. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 4(1), 73-106. 10.22099/jtls.2012.325
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.). Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 144–158). TESOL.
Krashen, S. (1982). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon.
Kwon, S. (2006). Roles of output and task design on second language  vocabulary acquisition. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Florida, USA. Retrieved from
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. Language Teaching Publications.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.) Native language and foreign language acquisition (p. 379). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Min, H. T. & Hsu, W. S. (2008). The impact of supplemental reading on vocabulary acquisition and retention with EFL learners in Taiwan. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University, 53(1), 83–115.
Motaei, B., Ahangari, S., & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2018). Impact of interaction and output modality on the vocabulary learning and retention of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 7(25), 65–85.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nilforoushan, S. (2012). The effect of teaching vocabulary through semantic mapping on EFL learners’ awareness of the affective dimensions of deep vocabulary knowledge. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 164-172.
Niu, R., & Helms-Park, R. (2014). Interaction, modality, and word engagement as factors in lexical learning in a Chinese context. Language Teaching Research, 18, 345–372.
Norland, D. & Pruett-Said, T. (2006). A kaleidoscope of models and strategies for teaching English to speakers of other languages. Libraries Unlimited.
Pei, A., & Lin, Y. (2020). A study on the input and output of vocabulary teaching based on noticing theory.                Studies in English Language Teaching, 8(2), 123–135.
Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73–75.
Rezaei Gashti, Z. (2021). The impact of storytelling and cooperative learning on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary achievement. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(5), 63–76.
Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Pearson Education.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
Rott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input-output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 183–222.
Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry Potter and the sorcerer’s stone. Bloomsbury.
Sadeghi Beniss, A. R., & Ehsani Moghadam, T. (2016). Foreign language vocabulary retention: Investigating the role of T coding method in comparison with rote rehearsal learning. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 3(1), 2328–2343.
Shirzad, M., Eslami Rasekh, A., & Dabaghi, A. (2017). The effects of input and output tasks on the learning and retention of EAP vocabulary. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(2), 145–152.
Shokouhi, A., & Pishkar, K. (2015). Collaborative method and vocabulary retention of teenage EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(11), 2395–2401.
Soleimani, H. & Mahmoudabadi, Z. (2014). The impact of interactive output     tasks on develop  vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 17 (2), 93–113.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Newbury House.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, L (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Applied linguistics, 8, 95–110.
Zhang, Y. (2011). Content-based instruction in grammar teaching of English majors. Journal of Taiyuan Normal University, 10(5), 155–157.