本研究由114位台灣非英語系大學一年級生參與，其學生來自四個「大一英文」班級，所有學生皆為本地生，並在台灣學制下學習英文至少達九年，旨在探討兩種教學法對學生單字立即性及延遲性學習的影響。研究中的兩個教學法各為「純粹閱讀」及「閱讀＋單字焦點練習」；研究教材為四篇英文文章，每篇各有十個學生不熟悉的單字，四篇文章分別在四次的課程逐一教導，教學法則為上述兩種交替進行。研究工具以中譯版的「單字知識等級表」探討學生字彙習得及保存成效。研究結果顯示，四篇文章都證實「閱讀＋單字焦點練習」明顯有助學生立即記憶較多單字定義，然而，經過兩週沒有任何單字強化的情況下，只剩其中一篇文章顯示:接受「閱讀＋單字焦點練習」教學法的學生回憶明顯較多的單字。另外，比較兩種教學法對性別的差異發現，女生在兩種教學法的立即性單字習得都明顯比男生多，女生尤其受益於「閱讀＋單字焦點練習」教學法，統計結果指出，女生在兩週後仍比男生保留顯著的單字量。探討兩種教學對不同程度學生的影響顯示，程度最高和最低的兩班學生兩週後從兩種教學法中保留的單字量差異不大，然而，「閱讀＋單字焦點練習」教學特別有益於中等程度的兩班學生，此教學對字彙習得及保留皆有明顯助益。整體而言，本研究發現「閱讀＋單字焦點練習」在不同變項皆較有助單字習得，因此，本研究結論為台灣大學生能較有效的透過「閱讀＋單字焦點練習」教學法習得字彙。

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of two treatments, reading only (RO) and reading plus vocabulary enhancement activity (RV), on EFL college freshmen’s vocabulary acquisition and retention. A total of 114 subjects from four intact Freshman English classes of a private university in northern Taiwan participated in this study. All the participants were local Taiwanese students who have been learning English in the Taiwanese school setting for at least nine years. Students in the RO treatment were given a reading plus a supplemental reading while those in the RV treatment had to read and complete vocabulary enhancement activities. The two treatments were alternatively administered to each class during the study. Four readings were instructed in four one-hour sessions by the two treatments. Each class received each treatment twice during the study. Ten words which the participants had almost no knowledge of were targeted in each reading, so forty words in total were included. Two posttests were delivered to test word acquisition in each reading. One was the vocabulary acquisition test administered immediately after the intervention and the other was the delayed posttest administered two weeks after the instruction. The subjects were measured on both the immediate and delayed posttests by a modified Chinese version of Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). The result of the immediate posttests showed learners had highly significant word gains from the RV in all four readings. Yet without reviewing the words within the two-week interval the attainment waned. Only one reading showed the RV led to significantly better retention in the delayed posttests. When word acquisition of genders was compared, the female subjects outperformed significantly in the immediate posttests of both treatments. Consistently, the females assigned to the RV treatment retained significantly more words than the males in the delayed posttests. However, no significant difference between genders was found in the delayed RO treatment. When the effectiveness of the treatments was examined on classes of different proficiency levels, the result was that the scores in the RO and RV did not differ significantly in the highest and the lowest level classes. In contrast, the two classes which were in the middle level of the participating classes showed the RV led to significantly more word gains in both the immediate and delayed posttests. Due to the findings, the current study concluded that the RV was more effective in increasing word development of EFL learners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………..i
CHINESE ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………..ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………….iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………….....v
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………..ix

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………...1
1.1	Background……………………………………………………………………..…1
1.2	Motivation…………………………………………………………………………2
1.3	The present study………………………………………………………………….2
1.3.1 Research questions…………………………………………………………..4

Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………...6
2.1 L1 vocabulary learning through reading…………………………………………7
2.2 L2 vocabulary learning through reading…………………………………………9
   2.2.1 Studies about L2 vocabulary acquisition…………………………………..9
   2.2.2 Depth of processing………………………………………………………...12
   2.2.3 Involvement load hypothesis….…………………………………………...14
   2.2.4 Empirical studies testing involvement load hypothesis……………………16
2.3 Gender differences in language learning…………………………………………23
   2.3.1 Physiological factor……………………………………………………...…23
   2.3.2 Task preference……………………………………………………………..24
   2.3.3 Topic preference……………………………………………………………25
2.4 Proficiency level and language learning performance…………………………...27
   2.4.1 Matthew Effect……………………………………………………………..27
   2.4.2 Instructions for learners of different proficiency levels…………30

Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………33
3.1 Participants……………………………………………………………………….33
   3.1.1 Proficiency level of the learners……………………………………………34
   3.1.2 Proficiency level between genders…………………………………………36
   3.1.3 Assigned treatments………………………………………………………..37
3.2 Treatments…………………………………………………………….………….39
3.3 Materials………………………………………………………………………….43
   3.3.1 Selection of topics…………………………………………………………44
   3.3.2 Linguistic difficulty………………………………………………………...44
   3.3.3 Instructional appropriateness………………………………………………44
3.4 Test measurements………………………………………………………………..45
   3.4.1 Pretests……………………………………………………………………..45
   3.4.2 Immediate posttests………………………………………………………..50
   3.4.3 Delayed posttests…………………………………………………………..51
3.5 Scoring…………………………………………………………………………...52
3.6 Procedure………………………………………………………………………..55
3.7 Ethical consideration……………………………………………………………56

Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………..57
4.1 Immediate learning……………………………………………………………….60
4.2 Delayed retention………………………………………………………………...62
4.3 Gender difference and word gains……………………………………………….65
   4.3.1 Immediate performance………………………………………….65
   4.3.2 Delayed performance……………………………………………..67
4.4 Proficiency level and word gains……………………………………………...…68

Chapter 5: Discussion………………………………………………………………74
5.1 Different effectiveness of the treatments………………………………………..74
   5.1.1 Superiority of the RV in the immediate tests………………………….75
   5.1.2 Insignificant retention in Reading 1, 3, and 4………………….78
   5.1.3 Significant retention in Reading 2………………………………82
5.2 Females learned better than males………………………………………………..84
5.2.1 Females outperformed males throughout the study……………………84
5.2.2 Both genders performed better in the RV…………………………………..86
5.3 Learners of different proficiency levels learned differently……………………..86
   5.3.1 RV prevailed significantly in all the immediate tests………………………87
5.3.2 Insignificance retention in the highest and lowest level classes………..87
5.3.3 Significance retention in the middle level classes……………...90

Chapter 6: Conclusion……………………………………………………………...93
6.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….93
6.2 Pedagogical implications……………………………………………………….95
6.3 Limitations and suggestions for further study………………………………....96
References…………………………………………………………………………..98
Appendix 1: Reading 1……………………………………………………………...106
Appendix 2: Reading 2………………………………………………………….…..109
Appendix 3: Reading 3………………………………………………………….…..112
Appendix 4: Reading 4……………………………………………………………...115
Appendix 5: Multiple choice questions for Reading 1……………………………...118
Appendix 6: Multiple choice questions for Reading 2……………………………...120
Appendix 7: Multiple choice questions for Reading 3……………………………...121
Appendix 8: Multiple choice questions for Reading 4……………………………...122
Appendix 9: The supplemental reading for Reading 1……………………………...123
Appendix 10: The supplemental reading for Reading 2…………………………….125
Appendix 11: The supplemental reading for Reading 3…………………………….127
Appendix 12: The supplemental reading for Reading 4…………………………….129
Appendix 13: The vocabulary enhancement activities for Reading 1………………131
Appendix 14: The vocabulary enhancement activities for Reading 2………………134
Appendix 15: The vocabulary enhancement activities for Reading 3………………137
Appendix 16: The vocabulary enhancement activities for Reading 4………………140

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Comparisons of task effectiveness…………………………………………..17
Table 2 Subject level of proficiency…………………………………………………35
Table 3 Number of genders in each department…………………………………….36
Table 4 Genders’ level of proficiency……………………………………………….37
Table 5 Assigned treatments of the groups………………………………………….38
Table 6 Weekly treatments……………………………………………………….….41
Table 7 Involvement load of the treatments………………………………………...42
Table 8 Frequency distribution of known words in the pretest……………………..47
Table 9 Inferred meanings in the pretests…………………………………………..48
Table 10 Modified VKS………………………………………………………….….52
Table 11 Descriptive statistics of the pretest, immediate, and delayed posttests scores of the RO and RV treatment……………………………………………….58
Table 12 Comparison of immediate scores between treatments…………………….61
Table 13 Comparison of delayed scores between treatments………………………..63
Table 14 Gender differences between treatments in immediate posttests…………...66
Table 15 Gender differences between treatments in delayed posttests………………67
Table 16 Class average in both treatments…………………………………………...69

Applegate, A. J. & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The Peter Effect: Reading habits and attitudes of preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 554-563.
Ay, S. & Bartan, Ö. Ş. (2012). The effect of topic interest and gender on reading test types in a second language. The Reading Matrix, 12(1), 62-79.
Baddeley, A. D. (1978). The trouble with levels: A reexamination of Craik and Lockhart’s framwork for memory research. Psychological Review, 85, 139-152.
Batters, J. (1986). Do boys really think languages are just girl-talk? Modern Languages, 67(2), 75-79. 
Bensoussan, M., & Laufer, B. (1984). Lexicl guessing in context in EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 7(1), 15-32.
Bonomo, V. (2010). Gender matters in elementary education: Research-based strategies to meet the distinctive learning needs of boys and girls. Educational horizons, 88(4), 257-264.
Brett, A. Rothlein, L. & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 415-422.
Bügel, K., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 80, 15-31.
Costantino, M. & Dabbs, T. (2001). Reading for Real. Vamcouver: Lynx Publishing.
Crabbe, D. & Nation, P. (1991). A survival language learning syllabus for foreign travel. System, 19, 191-201. 
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framwork for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. 
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294. 
Doolittle, A., & Welch, C. (1989). Gender differences in performance on a college-level achievement test (ACT Research Rep., series 89-90). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1998). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 253-265.
Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174-187.
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Ellis R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gray, P. (1999). Psychology (3 rd Edn). New York: Worth Publishers. 
Hamlon, H., Thatcher, R., & Cline, M. (1999). Gender Differences in the Development of EEG Coherence in Normal Children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 16 (3), 479-506.
Horst, M. Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(2), 207-223. 
Hulstjin, J. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning:Theoretical considerations and pedagogical implications. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp.203-224). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. (2001) Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: a reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In: Robinson, P. (ed.) Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 258-286.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558.
Kim, Y. J. (2011). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 100-140.
Knight, S. M. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal, 78, 285-299.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issue and implications. Harlow, UK:Longman. 
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464.
Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25, 21-33. 
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin,Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 20-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 567-587. 
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistic, 22, 1-26.
Lenroot, R., Gogtay, N., Greenstein, D., Wells, E., Wallace, G., Clasen, L., Blumental, J., Lerch, J., Zijdenbos, A., Evans, A., Thompson, P., and Geidd, J.(2007). "Sexual Dimorphism of Brain Developmental Trajectories during Childhood and Adolescence." Neuro1mage, 36, 1065-1073.
Lessard-Clouston, M. (1996). ESL vocabulary learning in a TOEFL preparation class: A case study. Canadian Modem Language Review, 53, 97-119.
Lynn, R., & Wilsoit, R. G. (1993). Sex differences in second language ability. School Psychology International, 14, 275-279. 
Min, H. T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58(1), 73-115.
Nagy, W., & Herman, P. (1985). Incidental vs. instructional approaches to increasing reading vocabulary. Educational Perspectives, 23, 16-21.
Nagy, W., & Herman, P. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M.McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 97-110). London: Longman.
Nation, I. S. P. & Wang, M. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12, 355-380.
Nikolova, O. R., & Taylor, G. (2003). The impact of a language learning task on instructional outcomes in two student populations: High ability and average ability students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(4), 205-217.
Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1993). The relationship between reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11(1), 9-29. 
Paribakht T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary development. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp.174-200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2 vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 195–224.
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.
Richards, J. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77-89.
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners' incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 589-619. 
Sax, L. (2006). Six degrees of separation: What teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. Educational Horizons, 84, 190-212.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Segalowitz, N. S. (2003). Automaticity and second language. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.) The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382-408). Oxford, U. K.: Blackwell. 
Sinclair, J. (2003). (4th Ed.). Advanced learner’s English dictionary. Glasgow:HarperCollins Publishers.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
Takase, A. (2007). Japanese high school students’motivation for extensive L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 1-18.
Tu, H. F. (2004). Effects of Task-Induced Involvement on Incidental Vocabulary Learning in a Second Language. Retrieved from National Tsing Hua University Thesis. (NH0920094005)
Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. L. (1983). Matthew effect in education. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 359–373.
Walberg, H. J., Strykowski, B. E, Roval, E., & Hung, S. S. (1984). Exceptional performance. Review of Educational Research, 54, 87-112.
Waring, R. & Takaki, M. (2003). At whatrate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 130-163. 
Zahar, R., Cobb. T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 541-572.
Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin, Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 5-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.