Form-Fokus versus Inhalts-Fokus: Zur Nutzung von CALL+ als Instrument zwecks Bestimmung des optimalen Kontextualisierungsgrades beim L2-Lexik-Lernen
Form Focus versus Content Focus: On the Use of CALL+ as an Instrument for Determining the Optimal Degree of Contextualization in L2 Lexical Learning

Summary/Abstract: The controversy about form focus versus content focus or lexicality versus textuality and the relevance of the respective chosen degree of contextualization of the teaching material for successful L2 vocabulary acquisition is still considered unresolved. While on the one hand Krashen with his input hypothesis (1985 ff.) and the work that followed him (e.g., Wu 2010, Yang 2011, Jergerski 2021, Lichtman/VanPatten 2021, Lowen 2021) advocate content-oriented vocabulary work, other researchers such as Laufer (et al. 2009, 2010, 2017a,b), Spada (2011), Shintani (2013), Yang/Shintani/Li/Zang (2017), Kang/Sok/Han (2019), Sima (2019), McLean/Stoeckel (2021), Soodmand (2021) and other representatives of modern language teaching research argue for paying much more attention to form-oriented vocabulary work. One of the main reasons for this divergence may be that many empirical studies only cover a small database of a few test vocabulary items in observation periods that are also very limited in time, which severely limits gene- ralizable statements from the outset. This paper addresses this problem and discusses the possibilities of a computer-based longitudinal analysis and optimization of the complex learning conditions of L2 lexicon acquisition. The focus is on the extent to which the contrast of context isolation versus context integration of lexical learning material influences learning efficiency and success. The empirical data collected in the pilot study presented here (based on more than 107,000 computerized lexical learning and reactivation records) and their systematic analysis demonstrate that the dependence of lexical learning and reactivation performance on the chosen degree of contextualization is apparently much lower than propagated by both representatives of the input hypothesis and proponents of form-focusing.

• Details
• Contents