Discussion

The story-plus-study grouped clearly learned more words than the story-only group, getting approximately double the score of the story-only group on the delayed posttest. But they also devoted a lot more time to vocabulary learning. Calculations of words learned per minute revealed that the story-only group learned words much more efficiently, at least double the rate of the story plus study group.

This study was not a comparison of "pure acquisition" with acquisition plus supplementary learning. The subjects in the story-only condition were told which words were target words and were clearly focused on form. The comparison was thus one of more versus less focus on form. It thus does not speak to the issue of whether comprehensible input alone is more or less efficient than conscious learning. Nor do we know whether gains were due to acquisition, learning, or both: The measure used allowed students to utilize both conscious and subconscious knowledge of language.

The results suggest that additional focus on form in the form of traditional vocabulary exercises is not as efficient as hearing words in the context of stories, but several considerations prevent us from embracing this conclusion firmly.

There is an apparent counterexample. Paribakht and Wesche (1997) compared the impact of reading on vocabulary development with and without supplementary vocabulary activities. Both conditions resulted in substantial gains, but the gains in the "reading plus" condition were larger. Their "reading only" and "reading plus" treatments, however, utilized different texts and target words. In this study, story only and story plus study groups heard the same text and dealt with the same words. In addition, for both conditions in Paribakht and Wesche's study, the reading text was followed by comprehension exercises that were corrected in class. Even the "reading only" group may have spent more time on form-focused activities than in actual reading. Both groups in Paribakht and Wesche's study were thus heavily focused on form, far more than the subjects in the story-only condition in this study. Their study may have had very little to do with impact of reading on vocabulary development.

5