خسرو بهراملو

This study aimed to compare the effects of vocabulary practice and group dynamic assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing. Using purposive sampling, 42 Persian language learners were selected as participants. The treatment consisted of four texts which in total contained 20 unfamiliar words. The learners read a text a day and answered its comprehension questions. After reading each text, in the “dynamic assessment” group the learners inferred the meanings of unfamiliar words and in the end read the text once more. The learners of the “vocabulary practice” group did two exercises for each unfamiliar word of the text. The “dynamic assessment plus vocabulary practice” group first inferred the meanings of unfamiliar words and then did one exercise for each unfamiliar word. One day before the treatment, the pretest of unfamiliar words was administered. One day and one month after the treatment, the learning and retention posttests were held, respectively. The results indicated that there were no significant differences between the means of “dynamic assessment” and “vocabulary practice” groups on learning and retention posttests. However, on learning and retention posttests the means of “dynamic assessment plus vocabulary practice” group were significantly higher than those of the other two groups. It was concluded that vocabulary practice and group dynamic assessment have a nearly similar effect on word learning through lexical inferencing, but, simultaneous use of these two could result in more word learning. Extended Abstract: Persian language vocabulary is one of the areas in which Persian language learners experience many difficulties. Many of the Persian language vocabulary cannot be directly taught in the language classes and the learners must acquire them through other means. Lexical inferencing is one of the ways in which vocabulary could be acquired. Lexical inferencing involves discovering the meanings of a text’s unfamiliar words based on textual clues or one’s own knowledge (Haastrup, 1991). Lexical inferencing is a reading comprehension strategy which could lead to word learning as a byproduct (Wesche & Paribakht, 2010. ) Paribakht and Wesche (1997) reviewed the studies which explored word learning through lexical inferencing. In naturalistic studies which involved reading texts and answering comprehension questions, vocabulary acquisition was inefficient and unpredictable. However, in interventionist studies which involved vocabulary enhancement activities following reading and answering comprehension questions, enhanced vocabulary learning was observed. In this study, it was argued that naturalistic and interventionist studies of word learning through lexical inferencing are not different in kind. Both types focus on the amount of word learning pursuing lexical inferencing and do not pay due attention to the process of lexical inferencing. That is, they do not train learners in drawing on textual clues and their own knowledge to discover word meanings. It was suggested that one of the ways in which the process of lexical inferencing could receive due attention involves using group dynamic assessment to explore word learning through reading.  In a lexical inferencing study which draws on group dynamic assessment, the teacher would engage in a dialogic interaction with a group of learners who are reading a text for comprehension. Whenever learners experience problems with an unfamiliar word, drawing on the text and the learners’ knowledge the teacher would offer clues to the learners to help them infer its meaning. At first, the clues would be very implicit and if the learners are not responsive to them, they could gradually become more explicit until the learners discover the meaning or the teacher provides it. This study aimed to compare the effects of vocabulary practice and group dynamic assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing. For this purpose, three elementary schools in rural areas of Urmia were contacted to participate in the study. The student population consisted of 137 Azeri-speaking boys who were studying at grade three. Using purposive sampling, 42 Persian language learners were selected as participants. That is, one day before the treatment the pretest of target words was administered to the third grade students and the students for whom more than 85% of the target words were unfamiliar were selected as participants. The participants were randomly assigned to three equal size groups. Over four days, the treatment was administered to the participants. The treatment consisted of four texts which in total contained 20 unfamiliar words. The learners read a text a day and answered its comprehension questions. After reading each text, in the “dynamic assessment” group the learners inferred the meanings of unfamiliar words and in the end read the text once more. After reading each text, the learners of the “vocabulary practice” group did two exercises for each unfamiliar word of the text. After reading each text, the “dynamic assessment plus vocabulary practice” group first inferred the meanings of unfamiliar words and then did one exercise for each unfamiliar word. One day and one month after the treatment, the learning and the retention posttests were held, respectively. The results of MANOVA analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between the means of “dynamic assessment” and “vocabulary practice” groups on learning and retention posttests. However, on learning and retention posttests the means of “dynamic assessment plus vocabulary practice” group were significantly higher than those of the other two groups. It was concluded that vocabulary practice and group dynamic assessment have a nearly similar effect on word learning through lexical inferencing, but, simultaneous use of these two could result in more word learning. Based on the findings, Persian language teachers were recommended to encourage their learners to read extensively. While reading, the teachers were encouraged to draw learners’ attention to unfamiliar words; to have the learners infer their meanings; to offer inference clues to the learners; and to engage the learners in vocabulary practice pursuant to reading. According to Hulstijn (2001), after elaborate processing of a newly encountered word and intentional practice of that word the learner should engage in fluency practice of the new word. This would necessitate the use of the new word in L2 communication. One of the main limitations of this study was that the learners were not made to use the target words in real L2 communication. Future studies could explore this gap in the literature. Another limitation was that the study involved male participants alone. The effect of group dynamic assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing could be explored in female participants as well.

Persian language learners invest a proportion of their time on acquiring Persian vocabulary. To afford a high investment return to these learners, the curriculum should include high frequency words drawn from a Persian general service wordlist. To develop a general service wordlist for Persian, we need to adopt a definition for the term "word" in accord with the mental lexicon of average Persian speaker. This definition will help us in identifying different tokens of a word type. We also need to consider the text coverage and the range of the basic vocabulary in the source corpus and other corpora. In this study, we adopted a modified version of the word family concept to identify different tokens of word types and utilized it in estimating the test coverage and the range of the words of Bijankhan and Mohseni's (1391) Persian word frequency list. The corpus included 34000 words. The results demonstrated that a modified version of Bijankhan and Mohseni’s (1391) word frequency list affords 84 percent coverage of our corpus and its words enjoy satisfactory range. It was concluded that by implementing some modifications to Bijankhan and Mohseni’s (1391) list, a Persian general service wordlist could be developed. This general service wordlist could be used in setting curricular goals and in defining learner mastery levels and language difficulty levels. This instrument could facilitate the development of Persian vocabulary tests and proficiency tests. It will also be of help in identifying Persian academic and technical vocabulary.