Jane Doe and John Smith RQ: To what extent does writing new words help high school ELLs learn vocabulary?
Barcroft, J. (2004). Effects of sentence writing in second language lexical acquisition. Second Language Research, 20(4), 303-334.
This is YOUR RQ.
What is the Issue?What is the Issue?
The effects on learning new second language (L2) words when comparing writing words in a sentence vs. repetition of words in a word-picture task.
Beginning of Introduction and literature
review
Potential factors affecting L2 Potential factors affecting L2 lexical acquisitionlexical acquisition
• Semantic Elaboration: Focus on semantic (referential, meaning-related) properties of an item in the input
• Output = production: Writing ‘known’ or ‘new’ words in original sentences
Semantic Elaboration (SE)Semantic Elaboration (SE)
• Positively affects memory for L1 ‘known’ words (e.g. Tressalt & Mayzner 1960; Levin et al. 1982)
• Memory for known or new words depends on type of assessment (Pressley et al. 1982)– Reliance on form vs. meaning
Theories of Human Memory for Theories of Human Memory for Processing InputProcessing Input
• Levels of processing (LOP): Depends on ‘depth’ of cognitive processing (Craik & Lockhart 1972)– More vs. less elaborate manipulation
• Transfer appropriate processing (TAP):– Memory performance depends on
processing: same on test as during learning? (Morris et al. 1977)
Theories of Human Memory for Theories of Human Memory for Processing InputProcessing Input
• Type of processing-resource allocation (TOPRA): For high processing demands, semantic elaboration:– increases learning semantic properties of words– but decreases learning strucural properties– because processing resources are limited
(Barcroft, 2000, 2002; McDaniel & Kearney, 1984)
Semantic Elaboration Research Semantic Elaboration Research in L2 Word Learningin L2 Word Learning
• No positive effects on structural memory for new words = TOPRA (Brown & Perry, 1991; Prince, 1996)
• Positive effects on ‘pseudoword’ learning (Coomber et al., 1986)– But tasks may not have involved the
expected amount of semantic elaboration
Mixed Effects of OutputMixed Effects of Outputon L2 Word Learningon L2 Word Learning
• No effects of translating new L2 words into L1 (Watanabe, 1997)
• Negative effects of copying L2 words (=structural) (Barcroft, 1999)
• Positive effects of ‘modified output’ (Ellis & He 1999)
Effect depends on type of learning task and test
The Present Study:The Present Study:Research QuestionsResearch Questions
1. Does writing new words in sentences affect L2 lexical acquisition (L2la)?
2. If ‘yes,’ does sentence writing decrease L2la? (b/c requires semantic processing)
3. If ‘yes,’ are effects (decrease in L2la) short and long term?
The paper’s RQs
Experiment 1Experiment 1Participants• L2 Spanish, L1 English• 2nd semester college students (n=44)
Materials• 24 concrete, unfamiliar words, no cognates with
English
Exposure time and repetitions• No sentence writing: 24 sec.; 4 exposures per
word• Sentence writing: 48 sec.; 1 exposure per word
(See experiment 2!)
Beginning of method
Experiment 1Experiment 1Design and procedureDesign and procedure
1.Pre-test: 24 new L2 words2.Treatment (everyone did both conditions):
– Condition 1: Write words in original sentences(= semantic elaboration)
– Condition 2: View word-picture repetitions (4 times) (=structural memory)
3.Post-tests:1. After treatment2. Two days later3. One week later
Scoring and AnalysisScoring and Analysis
Dependent variables:• number of syllables correctly produced• number of words correctly produced
Analysis• Repeated-measures ANOVA
Experiment 1: ResultsExperiment 1: Results
Syllables: Significant effects for time and condition,no interactions. Similar effect for # of words.
Beginning of results
DiscussionDiscussion• Sentence writing has a negative, lasting
effect on L2 word learning• Supports TAP: Learning through sentence
writing does not transfer to productive L2 vocabulary test
• Supports TOPRA: High processing demands of sentence writing decreases memory for structure of new words
Experiment 2Experiment 2Participants• L2 Spanish, L1 English• 2nd semester college students (n=10)
Materials• 24 concrete, unfamiliar words, no cognates with English
Exposure time and repetitions• No sentence writing: 24 sec.; only 1 exposure per word• Sentence writing: 48 sec.; 1 exposure per word
Design and procedure• Similar to Experiment 1• No third posttest
Experiment 2: ResultsExperiment 2: Results
Syllables: Significant effects for condition, not time;no interactions. No significant effects for # of words.
DiscussionDiscussion
• Confirmation of results from Experiment 1
• Findings from Experiment 1 not due to differences in time of exposure or number of repetitions
ConclusionsConclusionsand Implicationsand Implications
Sentence writing = semantic elaboration and output• Sentence writing can inhibit learning of structural
properties of new words (not known words)• Overload of processing resources required in
sentence writing divide attention for new word learning
• Future research: Study independent effects of semantic elaboration vs. output; test learners of different proficiency levels, L1s and L2s, on different tasks
Overall discussion/ conclusions
Discussion QuestionDiscussion Question
Do you think that these findingshave any pedagogical implications for TESOL?
If so, what are they? If not, why?
YOUR question to start class discussion
ReferencesReferencesBarcroft, J. (1999). Processing resources and L2 lexical acquisition in three writing tasks.
Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Minneapolis, MN.Barcroft, J. (2000). The effects of sentence writing as semantic elaboration on the allocation
of processing resources and second language lexical acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52, 2. [note: page number are missing in reference list]
Brown. T. & Perry, Jr. F. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655-670.
Coomber, J. E., Ramstad, D. A. & Sheets, D. R. (1986). Elaboration in vocabulary learning: A comparison of three rehearsal methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 289-93.
Craik, R. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-84.
Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The role of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
Levin, J. R., McCorminck, C.Bl, Miller, G. E, Berry, J. K. & Pressley, M. (1982). Mnemonic vs. nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies for children. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 121-136.
McDaniel, M. A. & Kearney, E. M. (1984). Optimal learning strategies and their spontaneous use: The importance of task-appropriate processing. Memory and Cognition, 12, 361-373.
Morris, C.D, Bransford, J.D. & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing vs. transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-33.
References (all and
only those in ppt)
ReferencesReferencesPressley, M., Levin, J. R. & Miller, G. E. (1982). The keyword method compared to
alternative vocabulary-learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 50-60.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context vs. translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 478-93.
Tressalt, M. E. & Mayzner, M. S. (1960). A study of incidental learning. Journal of Psychology, 50, 339-47.
Wattanabe, Y. 1997. Input, intake and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 287-307.
