Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T03:55:53.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECTS OF LEARNING DIRECTION IN RETRIEVAL PRACTICE ON EFL VOCABULARY LEARNING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2021

Masato Terai Open the ORCID record for Masato Terai [Opens in a new window] ,
Junko Yamashita  and
Kelly E. Pasich
Masato Terai*
Affiliation:
Nagoya University
Junko Yamashita*
Affiliation:
Nagoya University
Kelly E. Pasich*
Affiliation:
Nagoya University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Masato Terai, Graduate School of Humanities, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464–0814 Japan. E-mail: teraimasato0915@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In paired-associate learning, there are two learning directions: L2 to L1 (L2 words as stimuli and L1 words as responses) and L1 to L2 (L1 words as stimuli and L2 words as responses). Results of previous studies that compared the effects of the two learning directions are not consistent. We speculated that the cause of this inconsistency may be L2 proficiency, as the strengths of the lexical links between L2 and L1 are different depending on the learner’s L2 proficiency. This hypothesis was examined with 28 native speakers of Japanese learning English. Participants studied novel English words in the two learning directions. The results of posttests showed that for lower-proficiency learners, L2-to-L1 learning was more effective than L1-to-L2 learning, while for higher-proficiency learners, L1-to-L2 learning was more effective. The findings suggest that L2 proficiency influences the effects of learning direction on vocabulary learning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 43 , Issue 5 , December 2021 , pp. 1116 - 1137
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Amano, S., & Kondo, T. (1999). Nihongo-no-Goitokusei Shinmitsudo [Lexical properties of Japanese: Word familiarity]. Sanseido.Google Scholar
Amano, S., & Kondo, T. (2000). Nihongo-no-Goitokusei Hindo [Lexical properties of Japanese: Frequency]. Sanseido.Google Scholar
Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52, 323–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J. (2007). Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 57, 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–12. Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In Gopher, D. & Koriat, A. (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435–459). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A., & Kroll, J. F. (2015). Desirable difficulties in vocabulary learning. The American Journal of Psychology, 128, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Vul, E. (2006). What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 826–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). https://www.english-corpora.org/coca Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Keijzer, R. (2000). What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign‐language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 50, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rosario-Martinez, H. (2015). phia: Post-hoc interaction analysis. R package version 0.2–1. Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Wahl, A., Buytenhuijs, F., Van Halem, N., Al-Jibouri, Z., De Korte, M., & Rekké, S. (2019). Multilink: A computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 657–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerard, P. D., Smith, D. R., & Weerakkody, G. (1998). Limits of retrospective power analysis. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 62, 801–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2019). Word knowledge: Exploring the relationships and order of acquisition of vocabulary knowledge components. Applied Linguistics, 41, 481–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P., & MacLeod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, G., & Harley, T. (1996). List learning of second language vocabulary. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2007a). Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 704–719.Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2007b). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., Michael, E., Tokowicz, N., & Dufour, R. (2002). The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research, 18, 137–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2003). Cognitive processes in second language learners and bilinguals: The development of lexical and conceptual representations. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 104–129). Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusanagi, K., Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2015). Nihon no Gaikokugo kyouiku kenkyu ni okeru koukaryou, kenteiryoku, hyouhonsaizu: Language Education & Technology keisai ronbun wo taisyou ni shita jirei bunseki [Reviewing effect sizes, statistical powers, and sample sizes of foreign language teaching research in Japan: A case analysis of Language Education & Technology]. Language Education & Technology Journal, 52, 105–131.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2011). Incidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task type, word occurrence and their combination. Language Teaching Research, 15, 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. V. (2019). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.4.1. Google Scholar
Meara, P., & Miralpeix, I. (2016). Tools for researching vocabulary. Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2010). Koukaryou to kenteiryoku bunseki nyuumon: Toukeiteki kentei wo tadashiku tsukau tame ni [Introduction to effect size and power analysis: For an appropriate use of the statistical test]. Language Education & Technology, Kansai Chapter, Methodology Special Interest Group, 47–73.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S., & Foster, T. M. (2004). The case against retrospective statistical power analyses with an introduction to power analysis. Acta Ethologica, 7, 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakata, T. (2017). Does repeated practice make perfect? The effects of within-session repeated retrieval on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 653–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakata, T., & Suzuki, Y. (2019). Effects of massing and spacing on the learning of semantically related and unrelated words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakata, T., & Webb, S. (2016). Does studying vocabulary in smaller sets increase learning? The effects of part and whole learning on second language vocabulary acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 523–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, E. (2014). The effects of repetition and time of post-test administration on EFL learners’ form recall of single words and collocations. Language Teaching Research, 18, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., & Guynn, M. J. (1996). Retrieval processes. In Bjork, E. L. & Bjork, R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Memory (2nd ed., pp. 197–236). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royer, J. M. (1973). Memory effects for test-like-events during acquisition of foreign language vocabulary. Psychological Reports, 32, 195–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, V., Healy, L., & Bourne, E. (2002). What is learned under difficult conditions is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & Dekeyser, R. (2019). The desirable difficulty framework as a theoretical foundation for optimizing and researching second language practice. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 713–720.Google Scholar
Tagashira, K., Kida, S., & Hoshino, Y. (2010). Hot or gelid? The influence of L1 translation familiarity on the interference effects in foreign language vocabulary learning. System, 38, 412–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamura, Y., Fukuta, J., Nishimura, Y., Harada, Y., Hara, K., & Kato, D. (2019). Japanese EFL learners’ sentence processing of conceptual plurality: An analysis focusing on reciprocal verbs. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 59–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S. (2007). Learning word pairs and glossed sentences: The effects of a single context on vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 11, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S. (2009). The effects of receptive and productive learning of word pairs on vocabulary knowledge. RELC Journal, 40, 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S., & Chang, A. C. S. (2015). How does prior word knowledge affect vocabulary learning progress in an extensive reading program? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 651–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2021). To what extent does the involvement load hypothesis predict incidental L2 vocabulary learning? A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 71, 487–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar