The theoretical concept of risk taking involves several aspects of ambiguity and unexpectedness. At its most general, risk taking refers to the willingness to be risky in special circumstances. Many authors have paid more attention to the process of risk taking rather than to its consequences. Supporters of such view emphasize that the process of taking risks starts by having an array of actions to choose in order to solve a task (Beebe, 1983). Bem (as cited in Beebe, 1983) identifies the significance of choices and further considers risk taking a process of constant choice of actions which can lead the learner to a “worse position” (ibid). On the one hand, it can be argued that Bem’s negative view of language risk taking does not identify the usefulness or efficiency of being venturous in the classroom. Bem does not pose the idea of risk taking as a possible positive agent in the academic scenario, but he states a required part of the risk taking process: choice of courses of action. Definitely, a risk taker has to select what is considered the best choice at the moment of making a decision. Thus, risk taking includes uncertainty not only of the consequence but also of the action or procedure selected to accomplish an oral task.
Other studies on individual differences and second language acquisition have focused on the outcomes of risk taking rather than on the process in regard to student accomplishment in speaking tasks. Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky for example, suggest that taking risks can have a fundamentally negative consequence since the learner might be involved in a loss or defeat situation (as cited in Gass & Selinker, 2008). Therefore, the concept of risk taking tends to be correlated with an unfavorable condition that may prevent oral communication in a second language. According to Dewaele and Furnham (1999) it is also possible that risk takers devote accuracy for the sake of speed in speech production, which might lead the learner to produce poor linguistic output. Suffice it to say, high levels of risk taking influence other areas, e.g., self-esteem, willingness to communicate and confidence, which may put the learner in a vulnerable position. In other words, the more risks a learner takes the more opportunities he has to be emotionally constrained.
Wen and Clément (2003) also describe the concept of uncertainty in risk taking in terms of consequences. However, their comments on risk taking are more socially-oriented in the sense that both authors accentuate embarrassment and peer humiliation as possible results of the risk practice. Similarly to prior definitions of risk taking, Wen and Clément’s (2003) observations on risks are remarkable; although, their work mainly introduces the negative side of this variable. What is exquisite about their definition is the concatenation of a conscious-unconscious continuum of risk-taking behaviors. Although the association between consciousness and unconsciousness can be a rich source of investigation for the literature on risk taking, the authors make brief hints of it; this demonstrates one of the basic weaknesses of their article named Willingness to Communicate in ESL.
Lee and Ng (2010) mention that in the field of second language learning, academic risk taking has been defined as a situation-based process that can be managed by providing the proper contexts for its application. The contexts may range from the ones in which the learners realize what skill to use and under what conditions to the ones in which learning happens in a probable setting. The latter can cause students to extremes in the utilization of risk taking. The fact that risk taking is not a fixed personality trait that is constant across situations has permitted researchers to suppose it a potential tool that students can apply for the enhancement of their learning when fittingly regulated.
Furthermore, a majority of work published in the literature of the field has related risk taking to other classroom factors. A case in point is Ely’s characterization of risk taking. In a study accomplished in 1986 (as cited in Nga, 2002), he clarifies that taking risks is intrinsically related to classroom participation and self-confidence. Ely ascertains a key pedagogical factor that was not comprised in previous definitions of the term and that is required in a language class: willingness to participate. According to Hongwei (1996) classroom participation may demonstrate for language learners a noteworthy chance to practice and improve their skills in the target language. On the other hand, Lee and Ng (2010) state that another classroom factor correlated with the willingness to speak is the teacher’s role and whether it can decrease student inhibition to participate in the second language class.
Since there have been numerous various approaches to the term risk taking, the effort to define it and its educational rationale have modified so much that research on learner differences has not come to a unified explanation of the term yet. In spite of this fact, one of the most general definitions of risk taking is found in the words of Beebe, one of the leading researchers in the field. In her analysis of risk taking, she attentively captures most of its essential characteristics. She characterizes the term as a “situation where an individual has to make a decision involving choice between alternatives of various desirability; the consequence of the selection is uncertain; there is a possibility of failure” (Beebe, 1983, p.39). Her definition of risk taking resonates with the observations of other authors, for example, Wen & Clément’s uncertainty of consequences and the choice of actions mentioned by Bem. Beebe (1983) does not comprehensibly clarify the pedagogical implication of risk taking; although, from her definition of the term, teachers and learners can conclude that the risk of being right or wrong, i.e. failure, is inherent to learning to speak a second language.
From all the specifications of the risk-taking construct reviewed so far, we can state that risk taking is not an isolated construct but is closely related to other fundamental learner variables such as classroom participation and willingness to communicate in a second language. What should be highlighted from the literature on risk taking is that this term requires interplay between the learner and the decisions that he makes, his willingness to participate, and the educational setting.
Definitely the definitions of risk taking have also caused research to account for the particular traits that a risk taker should have. In regard to the requirements that learners have to meet in order to be assumed risk takers, one of the most powerful reports corresponds to Ely’s dimensions. According to Ely’s (as cited in Alshalabi, 2003) first dimension, risk takers are not suspicious about utilizing a newly encountered linguistic component. The second dimension refers to risk takers’ willingness to use linguistic components perceived to be complicated or difficult. According to Alshalabi (2003) this dimension clarifies why risk takers expand levels of tolerance towards vagueness and ambiguity to the extent in which a complex or new situation does not really demonstrate an issue of concern for them. The third and fourth dimensions explain respectively how risk takers become tolerant toward possible incorrectness or inaccuracy in utilizing the language and how they are inclined to rehearse a new component silently before attempting to use it aloud. Hongwei (1996) mentions that this rehearsal issue, nevertheless, is further discussed by other\g researchers who believe that prior preparedness before producing utterances may hamper risk taking. Indeed, mental preparedness is said to be a specification of more cautious students who on special opportunities spend so much time preparing to talk that they decide not to take the risk of speaking in front of others.
Risk Taking should be a central issue in foreign Language learning particularly with respect to speaking exercises. As indicated by Beebe (1983) “you take a risk every time you open your mouth in a foreign Language, or for that matter in any learning situation where you are called on to perform without realizing it, even the most conservative individual takes risks”. (p.39)
One of the attributes of an effective student is to take risks. Students take risks each time they ask question, or reply to the Teacher. Specialists like Ely (1984) and Samimy (1991) contemplated Risk taking and considered Risk Taking as one of the attributes of good students. Swain (1985) states that active participation of the students in arrangement of importance through information gives students significant output. Important input is basic in framing semantic skill and significant output is vital in shaping syntactic skill. Thus, Student quietness in classroom is the issue of EFL Teachers.
In any case, scientists don’t all concur that absence of Risk Taking capacity isn’t exclusively external. Analysts included not just non-Student related components or outside elements yet additionally Student related or inner variables.
Student related variables comprise of individual and full of feeling factors identified with students Risk Taking performance. They incorporate age, gender, identity, motivation, confidence and anxiety. Students’ Risk taking conduct is affected by outer factors, for example, their social convictions or practices, their learning circumstance, for example,
Teachers’ attitude, teaching style and other course related components like class size and classroom exercises. Ely (1989), in a classroom perception and sound chronicle the members trying to discover the connection between Risk Taking and oral support, reasoned that there was a critical connection between classroom participation and oral capability.
Risk Taking elements can be sorted as Student related variables those that influence students from inside and non-Student related elements those that influence students from outside and exist in Language learning condition. Student related variables or interior components are those that the individual Language student carries with him/her to the specific learning circumstances include: inspiration, confidence, anxiety, and personality trait. External elements are those that portray the specific Language-learning circumstance. Non Student related elements affecting risk taking conduct of the Language students incorporate their learning circumstance, for example, Teacher’s attitude and teaching styles and course related elements like class size and classroom action.
Community Language learning or advising getting the hang of as indicated by Curran (1976), proposes an agreeable and warm atmosphere in which students are urged to practice activities to convey in the classroom and students effectively take risks without feeling threatened. Seliger (1977) in an observational examination made a refinement of the students at the limits of investment in a classroom setting and the impact of classroom communication on their Language capacity. Data were assembled through a semester and he reasoned that there were two sorts of students in view of verbal interaction; he called them ‘ high input generators’ and ‘low input generators’
The outcomes of an education by Zarfsaz et al. (2014), show that for low risk takers, anxiety, class actions and Ambiguity Tolerance are the most hindering factors while for high-risk takers, class activity is the most significant factor and second vital factors are Ambiguity Tolerance and class size. In their qualitative data analysis of the ten interviewees as the results demonstrate that 90% of the participants have positive attitudes toward risk-taking and they trust that active contribution and risk-taking is a good exercise for Language learners and high risk-takers are better Students. Fixing learners’ mistake in a friendlier way and highlighting that everyone can make mistake and making mistake is part of their education contributes to learners’ risk-taking skill and inspires them to take risks. They also found that teachers’ attitude, style and method as manipulating factors on Students anxiety level also have effects on classroom situation and environment and can be measured empowering or debilitating for learners’ Risk Taking capacity.
The literature in the field of second language acquisition has also brought to light other theories to explain risk takers. A clear instance is Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis. However, Krashen does not refer specifically to the concept of risk taking in his studies, the risk-taking construct and its specifications are implied in many of them. According to Ortega (2009, p.198) in simple terms, risk takers and risk-averse students can be compared respectively to Krashen’s “underusers” and “over users” of the monitor device. The over users are highly concerned with editing their language accomplishment and attentively think their utterances; hence, they usually represent deficient oral fluency (Krashen as cited in Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Monitor over users have the specification of “cautiousness” shared by risk-averse students in the language classroom. On the other hand, under users are believed to be more reckless in their use of the language. Their utterances are not the product of mental authenticity. Moreover, under users represent high levels of risk taking because they prefer to say what they want without worrying about the details like risk takers usually do. Beebe (1983) clearly summarizes the association between Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis and the concept of risk taking: “It is possible that Krashen’s cautious over user is a low risk taker. His monitor under user is a high risk-taker. The optimal monitor user calculates the appropriate time and place for monitoring” (p. 47). The optimal user proposed by Krashen then would match the appropriate risk taking student who is able to take precise risks when appropriate.
2.5 Vocabulary Learning
Vocabulary is the core of any language, and learning of foreign language vocabularies is time consuming and challenging (Monica, 2014).Despite the importance of learning vocabulary and applying new methods, yet teachers use traditional methods to teach vocabulary. In Iran vocabulary is taught based on rote learning methods like repeating and memorizing lots of words without meaningful learning or using Total Physical Response (TPR) to teach action words (Soleimani & Akbari, 2013).
The quality and quantity of language learning of EFL learners are determined largely with their vocabulary knowledge (Decarrico, 2001; Hatch & Brown, 1995; Maley, 1986; Schmitt 2000, cited in Nosratian et al., 2015). For this reason many EFL educators argue that inadequacy of lexical knowledge may hamper or slow down language learning (Fan, 2003, cited in Nosratian etal., 2015).Without having access to a range of vocabulary, we won’t be able to name objects, to express ideas about specific subjects or actions and get our meanings across (Jafari & Kafipoor,2013,p.1).
Vocabulary knowledge is often viewed as a critical tool for second language learners because a limited vocabulary in a second language impedes successful communication. Underscoring the importance of vocabulary acquisition, Schmitt (2000) emphasizes that “lexical knowledge is central to communicative competence and to the acquisition of a second language” p. 55) Nation (2001) further describes the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and language use as complementary: knowledge of vocabulary enables language use and, conversely, language use leads to an increase in vocabulary knowledge. The importance of vocabulary is demonstrated daily in and out the school. In classroom, the achieving students possess the most sufficient vocabulary. Researchers such as Laufer and Nation (1999), Maximo (2000), Read (2000), Gu (2003), Marion and others have realized that the acquisition of vocabulary is essential for successful second language use and plays an important role in the formation of complete spoken and written texts. In English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) learning vocabulary items plays a vital role in all language skills (i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Nation, 2011). Rivers and Nunan (1991), furthermore, argue that the acquisition of an adequate vocabulary is essential for successful second language use because without an extensive vocabulary, we will be unable to use the structures and functions we may have learned for comprehensible communication. Research has shown that second language readers rely heavily on vocabulary knowledge and the lack of that knowledge is the main and the largest obstacle for L2 readers to overcome (Huckin, 1995). In production, when we have a meaning or concept that we wish to express, we need to have a store of words from which we can select to express this meaning or concept. ‘‘When students travel, they don’t carry grammar books, they carry dictionaries’’ (Krashen, as cited in Lewis, 1993, p25). Many researchers argue that vocabulary is one of the most important-if not the most important- components in learning a foreign language, and foreign language curricula must reflect this. Wilkins (1972) states that: ‘‘There is not much value in being able to produce grammatical sentences if one has not got the vocabulary that is needed to convey what one wishes to say … While without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed’’ p97). Other scholars such as Richards (1980) and Krashen (1989), as cited in Maximo (2000) state many reasons for devoting attention to vocabulary. “First, a large vocabulary is of course essential for mastery of a language. Second language acquirers know this; they carry dictionaries with them, not grammar books, and regularly report that the lack of vocabulary is a major problem’’.
Vocabulary learning is a very important task of second language learners- maybe the most important one. As McLaughlin points out, vocabulary development is the “prime task of adult L2 learners” (1978:324). This is why adults carry dictionaries, not grammars, when they travel in foreign countries (Hatch 1978, cited by McLaughlin 1978). One can keep the communication going provided one knows the content words needed.
The existence of “foreigner talk” and “baby talk”, in which a lot of grammar features (not the content words) are simplified (Ferguson 1971), shows the importance of vocabulary from a different angle. Scientific investigation of learning the foreign language vocabulary, the building blocks of communication, has been largely neglected in the favor of research in other areas of language acquisition in the first three decades of the second half of the century. Holley (1973) observes the role of vocabulary learning in foreign language education, which is held to be secondary. That is because of the first language acquisition research findings, which have misled the teachers. In fact, in first language acquisition, children start acquiring with a small range of vocabulary until structural patterns are mastered; so by relying on these findings, the role of vocabulary is pushed into the background (Carter & McCarthy 1988).
According to Eeds and Cockrum (1985) while there exists a wide variety of ways to deal with vocabulary, the use of dictionary as the conventional method of instruction, in both first and second language learning, has been triggered. Marckwardt (1973), for example, comments: Dictionaries often supply information about the language not found elsewhere. Dictionaries often supply information about grammar, usage, status, synonym discrimination, application of derivative affixes, and distinctions between spoken and written English not generally treated in textbooks, even in a rudimentary fashion (cited in Bensoussan, Sim & Weiss, 1984: 263). Laufer (1990), similarly, believes that when word looks familiar but the sentence in which it is found or its wider context makes no sense at all, the learner should be encouraged to consult a dictionary (p.154).
Consulting a dictionary during an independent reading helps readers to find the meaning of the difficult vocabulary, ascertain the meaning of the unfamiliar word based on contextual information and provide further exposure for the word in other contexts, with different collocates and constructions, by making the student think about the words in relation both to the passage being read and the dictionary. In regard to the use of dictionary in second language learning, there are a number of studies reported in literature. A handful of L2-based studies have been conducted on the effects of dictionary use on reading and vocabulary learning. Bensoussan et al. (1984) did a pilot study to ascertain the effect of dictionary use on students’ performance on a reading comprehension test. Ten different passages with multiple-choice questions were administered to approximately 900 first-year students at Haifa University. Finally, he concluded that there was no significant difference in test scores between those who used the dictionary and those who did not. Luppescu and Day (1993) examined whether the use of a bilingual dictionary enhanced vocabulary learning on a reading task. A group of Japanese university students (N = 293) read a story that included 17 unknown words whose meaning could be inferred; half the group had access to a bilingual dictionary while half had no dictionary. After reading, all were given a multiple choice vocabulary test. The group that had access to the dictionary had a mean score on the vocabulary test that was 50% higher than the no dictionary group. This suggests that the use of a bilingual dictionary can enhance vocabulary learning (through reading).
Knight (1994) investigated the effects of bilingual dictionary use on vocabulary learning and reading comprehension in L2 learners with different L1 verbal abilities. Participants (N = 112) were university students studying Spanish at an intermediate level; they were randomly put into a dictionary or no dictionary group. Results indicated that there were significant differences favoring the dictionary group on both vocabulary learning (supply and select contexts, immediate and delayed tests) and reading comprehension measures. Learning English as a global language is an activity which people feel they need to engage in throughout their lives – mainly in a self-learning mode.
However, English teachers are unavailable outside the schools and learners need to find reliable information that they can refer to when they encounter a variety of problems related to English. English dictionaries can fill this void. In an EFL setting such as Korea, where target language input is limited, a dictionary is an invaluable reference to the English language. They provide learners with useful linguistic and cultural information, especially when teachers are unavailable and the learners are responsible for their own learning (Walz, 1990;). Homstad and Thorson (2000) suggest that within the communicative paradigm independent learning is an important goal – learners are ―expected to be active participants in their own learning, to be risk-takers, and to use language to create meaningful communication‖ (p. 9).
The dictionary is one tool that may help language learners to meet these expectations. According to Kirkness (2004), the dictionary has long been and still is ―an essential source, if not indeed the principal source, of information on language for all members of literate societies who might have questions on any aspect of the form, meaning, and/or use of a word or words in their own or in another language‖ (p. 54). Asher (1999) views dictionary use as a ―gateway to independent learning‖ (p. 66) – an important life-skill alongside such things as literacy in information and communications technology (ICT) and the use of calculators. Chambers (1999) also perceives dictionary use as a life-skill that requires practice and potentially leads to greater linguistic competence. Chambers is positive about the increased learner autonomy that access to a dictionary brings. Students no longer have to depend on memory. They now have opportunity to be imaginative, creative and more experimental with language, and are no longer reliant on having to ask a teacher if they do not know a word. Horsfall (1997) maintains: A dictionary can help pupils with both the simplest problems and with the most difficult. It can reveal misconceptions, because it is a private check for a pupil on a word … [thereby becoming] a positive motivator and confidence- builder, showing the learner that he/she can proceed without the teacher. It is both a teaching aid and a learning aid. (p. 7).
Up to now, much of research has focused on the relationship between ambiguity tolerance or risk taking and foreign language learning achievement in general. Although, there has been no research to date directly investigating the relationship between EFL learners’ ambiguity tolerance and risk taking and their vocabulary recall. In this sense, the present study aimed to contribute to the related literature with respect to the impact of ambiguity tolerance and risk taking on vocabulary recall and served to fill a gap in the literature.
2018-10-12-1539380869