<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Isfahan</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Applied Research on English Language</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>3134-0644</Issn>
				<Volume>3</Volume>
				<Issue>1</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2014</Year>
					<Month>01</Month>
					<Day>01</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>The effect of reading purpose on incidental vocabulary learning and retention among elementary Iranian learners of English</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle></VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>55</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>66</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">15477</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22108/are.2014.15477</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>EN</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Ahmad Reza</FirstName>
					<LastName>Eghtesadi</LastName>
<Affiliation>Abbaszadegan Institute for Educational Research, Mashhad, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Sakine</FirstName>
					<LastName>Momeni</LastName>
<Affiliation>Hakim Sabzevari University, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2013</Year>
					<Month>06</Month>
					<Day>28</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>This study, situated in an EFL context, aimed at discovering the ways purposes behind reading &lt;br /&gt;activities  influence  vocabulary  knowledge  gain  and  retrieval.  Seventy  five  elementary  learners &lt;br /&gt;of  English  were  randomly  assigned  to  three  groups  of  ‘free  reading’,  ‘reading  comprehension’ &lt;br /&gt;and ‘reading to summarize’. A modified text was administered to all the three groups. The data &lt;br /&gt;in  both  immediate  and  delayed  post-test  revealed  that  both  vocabulary  learning  and  retention &lt;br /&gt;were  greatly  influenced  by  the  purposeful  reading  activity.  The  Scheffe  post-hoc  test  revealed &lt;br /&gt;that  the  mean  scores  of  the  ‘summarizing’  and  ‘reading  comprehension’  groups  were &lt;br /&gt;significantly  different  from  the  mean  score  of  the  ‘free  reading’  group.  But  the  results  did  not &lt;br /&gt;indicate  any  significant  differences  between  the  mean  scores  of  the  two  groups  of &lt;br /&gt;‘summarizing’  and  ‘reading  comprehension’.  However  the  strength  of  association  for  the &lt;br /&gt;immediate  post-test  and  the  delayed  one  showed  that  a  large  part  of  the  variance  between  the &lt;br /&gt;three groups could be explained by the reading purpose. </Abstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Vocabulary Learning</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">conditions</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">extensive reading</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">EFL</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://are.ui.ac.ir/article_15477_da78563f1b11c68dc9d998ee0618d117.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
