[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-589533-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":84,"doc-detail-589533-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":77,"head_meta":79,"extra_data":81,"updated_unix":83},105,"en","incorporating-different-designs-of-interaction-into-vocabulary-instruction-its-effect-on-learners-lexical-depth-in-an-efl-context","Incorporating Different Designs of Interaction into Vocabulary Instruction: Its Effect on Learners'Lexical Depth in an EFL Context","","This study examined the effect of the interaction approach on young EFL learners’ lexical depth in a private language institute in Talesh, Iran. A Michigan test was administered to 40 EFL learners, and selected participants were assigned to two groups with different interaction designs: group A focused mainly on learner–learner interactions, while group B focused mainly on learner–teacher interactions. After 18 weeks, lexical depth was assessed via a word association task, and group B outperformed group A.",{"@graph":14,"@context":76},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/incorporating-different-designs-of-interaction-into-vocabulary-instruction-its-effect-on-learners-lexical-depth-in-an-efl-context/589533/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/incorporating-different-designs-of-interaction-into-vocabulary-instruction-its-effect-on-learners-lexical-depth-in-an-efl-context/589533.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Terk","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-06","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68,72],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What is the main purpose of the study?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The study investigates how different designs of interaction in vocabulary instruction affect young EFL learners’ lexical depth.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How were learners assigned to the two interaction groups?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"After administering a Michigan test to 40 learners, selected participants were divided into group A and group B, with group A using mostly learner–learner interactions and group B using mostly learner–teacher interactions.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"How was lexical depth measured after the instruction period?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Lexical depth was assessed after 18 weeks using a lexical depth test and a word association task (WAT).",{"name":73,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":74},"Which interaction design produced better results and why?",{"text":75,"@type":63},"Learner–teacher interaction (group B) significantly outperformed learner–learner interaction (group A) in improving learners’ knowledge of vocabulary depth.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":78,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":80,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":82,"site_id":7},589533,1792493644,{"code":4,"msg":85,"data":86},"success",[87,91,95,99,104,109,114,118,123,126,130],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":100,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},8,30,"research-report",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":121,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":125},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":129},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":131,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":132,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":133},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":85,"data":135},{"doc_id":82,"user_id":136,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":119,"language":143,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":144,"faqs":145,"seo_title":146,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":147,"read_time":148,"preview_page_count":4},1099525198933,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Advances in Language and Literary Studies ISSN: 2203-4714  \nVol. 7 No. 4; August 2016  \n Australian International Academic Centre, Australia  \n|  |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |\n| Flourishing Creativity & Literacy |  |  |\n\nIncorporating Different Designs of Interaction into Vocabulary Instruction: Its Effect on Learners'Lexical Depth in an EFL Context  \nMasoud Zoghi  \nDepartment ofELT, Ahar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahar, Iran [E-mail: m-zoghi@iau-ahar.ac.ir](E-mail: m-zoghi@iau-ahar.ac.ir)  \nAlireza Moradinejad (Corresponding author)  \nIslamic Azad University of Telesh, Guilan, Iran  \nE-mail: [alireza_moradinejad@yahoo.com](alireza_moradinejad@yahoo.com)  \nDoi:10 .7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.4p.7  \nURL: [http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.4p.7](http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.4p.7)  \nReceived: 10/02/2016  \nAccepted: 18/04/2016  \nAbstract  \nThis study examined the effect of the interaction approach on young EFL learners’ lexical depth in a private language institute in Talesh, Iran. To achieve this, a Michigan test was administered to 40 EFL learners. Those language learners who met the selection criterion, i.e., performed one standard deviation above and below the mean on the test were divided into two classes (N=28): group A (N= 14) and group B (N=14) . In both groups, the interaction approach was incorporated into vocabulary instruction. However, the design of the interaction was different in each group. In group A, interactions were mostly between learners. On the other hand, in group B, learners mainly interacted with the teacher. After 18 weeks of instruction, a test of lexical depth, word association tasks (WAT), was administered to the both groups. The results of statistical analysis showed that the standard deviation (SD) was almost the same in both groups. However, the mean in group B significantly outperformed group A. A t test was used to compare means of test scores between groups. The findings of this study suggest that learner-teacher interaction is a more effective design in the improvement of learners' knowledge of vocabulary depth in comparison with learner-learner interaction.  \nKeywords: Comprehension, Interaction, Negotiation for meaning, Knowledge of vocabulary depth, Word association task  \n1. Introduction  \nIt has been observed by many researchers that vocabulary knowledge involves more than remembering the meaning of a specific word (Nation, 1994; mentioned in Jafarpour, 2014) . In fact, the knowledge of vocabulary has two major dimensions: breadth and depth. Vocabulary breadth relates to the number of vocabulary items whose meanings are known to learners superficially. However, depth of vocabulary refers to how well a learner knows a word (Marzban & Hadipour, 2012; Shen, 2008) . The latter is also defined as “one's level of understanding of various important aspects of a word”(Qian, 1998, p.13) . This dimension of vocabulary is important “because it dictates the manner in which lexical items can be utilized”(Schmitt et al., 2011, p.106) .  \nKnowledge of vocabulary depth has been of great interest to many researchers and much research has focused its effort on the relationship between knowledge of vocabulary depth and some other parts of language. For example, Shen (2008) and Sen and Kuleli (2015) investigated the roles of depth of vocabulary knowledge in reading. Nassaji (2004) and Hatami and Tavakoli (2012) examined the relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners ’lexical inferencing and success. However, only recently, researchers have shown an interest in putting various means to use in order to increase learners’knowledge of vocabulary depth. Jafarpour (2014), for example, used the extensive reading approach to improve learners’knowledge of lexical depth. On the other hand, very few studies have been done regarding the effect of interaction on vocabulary knowledge. In a rare study, for example, Hashemi Shahraki and Kassaian (2011) investigated the effect","cbCainn3dTuznpbx","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainn3dTuznpbx","pdf",243240,"English","# Abstract\n# 1. Introduction\n## 1.1 The Interaction Hypothesis","[{\"question\":\"What is the main purpose of the study?\",\"answer\":\"The study investigates how different designs of interaction in vocabulary instruction affect young EFL learners’ lexical depth.\"},{\"question\":\"How were learners assigned to the two interaction groups?\",\"answer\":\"After administering a Michigan test to 40 learners, selected participants were divided into group A and group B, with group A using mostly learner–learner interactions and group B using mostly learner–teacher interactions.\"},{\"question\":\"How was lexical depth measured after the instruction period?\",\"answer\":\"Lexical depth was assessed after 18 weeks using a lexical depth test and a word association task (WAT).\"},{\"question\":\"Which interaction design produced better results and why?\",\"answer\":\"Learner–teacher interaction (group B) significantly outperformed learner–learner interaction (group A) in improving learners’ knowledge of vocabulary depth.\"}]","Incorporating Different Designs of Interaction into Vocabulary Instruction: Its Effect on Learners'Lexical Depth in an EFL Context | PDF",1792067560,23]