NOTICING, RETRIEVING AND GENERATION: AN INVESTIGATION INTO VOCABULARY LEARNING AND RETENTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22481/praxisedu.v17i44.6298Keywords:
Generation, Vocabulary Learning, Vocabulary RetentionAbstract
The present study is an attempt to examine the psychological processes of noticing, retrieval, and generation and their possible contribution to the process of vocabulary learning and retention among intermediate students. The research method was experimental. One hundred and twenty intermediate students were randomly assigned into four groups, namely Noticing through Input enhancement (n=30), Input Enhancement plus Input-Based Reviewing (n=30), Input Enhancement plus Output-Based Reviewing (n=30) and Input Enhancement plus Input-Based and Output-Based Reviewing. The Academic Words contextualized in Focus on Vocabulary 2: Mastering the Academic Word List (Schmitt, Schmitt, & Mann, 2011) were the target words of the study. A pretest composed of VLT items was administered to the participants. The first group encountered the target words that have been already highlighted to absorb their attention. Encountering the already highlighted words, the second group reviewed the words through researcher-made word cards. The third group, besides encountering the already highlighted words, reviewed the words through rewriting the sentences including the target words. The fourth group experienced noticing through input enhancement; retrieval through using researcher-made word cards; and generation through rewriting the sentences containing the unknown words. One week after the last treatment session, an immediate posttest, and after two weeks, a delayed posttest were administered. Based on the results of four one-way repeated measures ANOVAs and three one-way ANOVAs, it was revealed that all types of input-based, output-based and input+output-based reviewing have positive effect on vocabulary learning. However, their positive effect on vocabulary retention was fairly vague. Moreover, the group treated through input enhancement+input- and output- based reviewing outperformed the other groups.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347–376.
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259– 302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i.
Anderson, R. W. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. In S.M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language learning (pp. 177–201). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Alsulami, S. Q. (2016). Testing the Noticing Function of the Output Hypothesis. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 136.
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: theory and practice. East Sussex: Psychology
Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The
psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory: Volume 8 (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
Baleghizadeh, S., Yazdanjoo, S., & Fallahpour, H. (2018), The Effect of Input Enhancement
on Academic Vocabulary Learning among Intermediate EFL Learners in Iran. TESL
Reporter 50(2), 31–48.
Barcroft, J. (2007). Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 57, 35–56.
Brown, J. D. (1990). Short-cut estimators of criterion-referenced test consistency. Language
Testing, 7(1), 77–97.
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Regents.
Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25,
–15.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
Cullen, R. (2012). Grammar instruction. In A. Burns & J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 258–266). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
De Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening?: An
experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205–234
De la Fuente, M.J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.
DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613–642.
DeKeyser, R., (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195–221.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, (pp. 372–405). New York: Routledge.
Ellis, N., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, norm, and function. Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 93, 329–335.
Field, J. (2004). Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge.
Gary, J.O. & Gary, N. (1981). Comprehension-based language instruction: Theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 332–42.
Gass, S, M. & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, Interaction and Output in Second Language Acquisition. In B. vanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in Second Language Acquisition – An Introduction. (pp.180–206). New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gathercole, S.E., & Alloway, T.P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide for teachers. London: Sage Publications.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold. Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task.Language Teaching
Research, 11(4), 459–479.
Hashemi, S., & Kassaian, Z. (2011). Effects of learner interaction, receptive and productive
learning tasks on vocabulary acquisition: An Iranian case. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2165–2171.
Hatch, E. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Hirsh, D. (2012). Current perspectives in second language vocabulary research. Bern: Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers.
Horibe, S. (2003). The output hypothesis and cognitive processes: An examination via acquisition of Japanese temporal subordinate conjunctions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, Lafayette.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the Involvement Load
Hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
Hulstijn, J., & Trompetter, P. (1998). Incidental learning and second language vocabulary in computer-assisted reading and writing tasks. In D. Albrechtsen, B. Henriksen, I. Mees, & E. Poulsen (Eds.), Perspectives on Foreign and Second Language Pedagogy
(pp. 191–202). Denmark: Odense University Press.
Huynh, H. (1976). On the reliability of decisions in domain-referenced testing. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 13, 253–264.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental
study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577. Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language
acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239–278.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the Output Hypothesis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 421–452.
Jabbarpoor, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). The effect of input enhancement, individual output,
and collaborative output on foreign language learning: the case of English inversion
structures. RESLA 26, 267–288.
Jalilifar, A.R., & Amin, F. (2008). Classroom vocabulary learning: Investigating the role of
task types on Iranian high school learners of English as a foreign language. Teaching
English Language and Literature Society of Iran, 2(8), 111–141.
Joe, A. (1998). What effect do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental
vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357–377.
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual
enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183–216). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i.
Kirk, R. (2013). The Effects of Processing Instruction with and without Output: Acquisition of the Spanish Subjunctive in Three Conjunctional Phrases. Hispania, 96(1), 153– 169.
Komachali, M., & Khodareza, M. (2012). The Effect of Using Vocabulary Flash Card on Iranian Pre-University Students' Vocabulary Knowledge. International Education Studies, 5(3), 134–147.
Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1297–1317.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, New York: Longman. Kwon, S. H. (2007). The Roles of Output on L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: Noticing, Retrieval
and Retention. English Education, 62(4), 279–310.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence
for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–463.
Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: Do Learners Really Acquire Most Vocabulary by Reading? Some Empirical Evidence. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 59, 567–587.
Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability.
Language Testing, 16, 33–51.
Laufer, B. & Paribakht, T.,S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active
vocabularies: effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48, 365–91.
Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. G. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lee, S. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87–118. Lee, Y.H. & Lee, H.K. (2012). Effects of input enhancement techniques on word learning of
Korean elementary learners. Primary English Education, 18(3), 381–398.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen, 2nd
edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Leeser, M. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in
content-based instruction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 195–220. Leow, R. P. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania,
, 496–509.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: a student-centered approach. New
York: Routledge.
Leow, R., Egi, T., Nuevo, A., & Tsai, Y. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type
of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language
Learning, 13, 1–16.
Lin-Fang, W. (2013). A study of factors affecting college students’ use of ESL vocabulary
learning strategies. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(19),
–208.
Long, M.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41.
Long, M.H., Inagaki S,. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA:
Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82(3),
–371.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional
feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.
Maftoon, P., & Haratmeh, M. S. (2013). Effects of input and output-oriented tasks with different involvement loads on the receptive vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL
learners. Iranian Journal of Research in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 24–38. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second-Language Learning. London, Baltimore,
Melbourne, Auckland: Edward Arnold.
McLaughlin, B., & Heredia, R. (1996). Information processing approached to research on
second language acquisition and use. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition (pp. 213–225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. McNamara, D. S., & Healy, A. F. (1995). A generation advantage for multiplication skill training and nonword vocabulary acquisition. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne Jr. (Eds.), Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity (pp.
–169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milton, J., & Alexiou, T. (2012). Vocabulary input, vocabulary uptake and approaches to
language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, 40(1), 1–5.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F. & Marsden, E. (2013). Second Language Learning Theories.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Nakata, T. (2008). English vocabulary learning with word lists, word cards and computers:
implications from cognitive psychology research for optimal spaced learning. ReCALL, 20(1), 3–20.
Nakata, T. (2016). Does Repeated Practice Make Perfect? The Effects of Within-Session Repeated Retrieval on Second Language Vocabulary Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(4), 653–679.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms: Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Context. Florence: Taylor and Francis.
Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: a review of the research,
RELC, 13, 14–36.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nobuyoshi, J., and Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. English Language Teaching, 47, 203–210.
Peng, C.-Y. J., & Subkoviak, M. J. (1980). A note on Huynh's normal approximation
procedure for estimating criterion-referenced reliability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 359–368.
TESOL Journal,6 –301.
Rassaei, E., (2012). The effects of input-based and output-based instruction on L2
development. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 16(3), 1–25. Reinders, H., & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning and teaching (pp. 281–302). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, P. (2013).The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Russell, V. (2014). A Closer Look at the Output Hypothesis: The Effect of Pushed Output on Noticing and Inductive Learning of the Spanish Future Tense. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 25–47.
Sakai, H. (2004). Roles of output and feedback for L2 learners’ noticing. JALT journal, 26,
–54.
Sarani, A., Mousapour, G., & Ghaviniat, M. (2013). The role of task type in L2 vocabulary
acquisition: a case of Involvement Load Hypothesis. Language and Culture, 35(4),
–386.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars
and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–209).
London: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework: word associations and verbal suffixes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 17–36.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: theoretical underpinnings and practical suggestions. ELT Journal, 49, 133–143.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of
two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18(1), 55–88. Schmitt, D., Schmitt, N., & Mann, D. (2011). Focus on vocabulary 2: Mastering the Academic Word List. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Scovel, T. (1998). Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132. Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–179.
Sharwood-Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). Explaining input enhancement: a MOGUL
perspective.International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
(3). 253– 281.
Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A
process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253–279.
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching
Research, 15(2), 137–158.
Sinaei, M., & Asadi, J. (2014). The impact of two instructional techniques on EFL university
learners’ academic vocabulary Knowledge: Flash card-based instruction versus wordlists. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6(4), 156–167.
Soleimani, H., Ketabi, S., & Talebinejad, M.R. (2008). The effect of output fronted activities to enhance noticing and acquisition of rhetorical structure of contrast paragraphs. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 141–166.
Song, S. (2007). Beginning ESL learners' noticing of morphological and syntactic changes in recasts. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 1–25.
Subkoviak, M. J. (1976). Estimating reliability from a single administration of a mastery test.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 13, 265–276.
Subkoviak, M. J. (1988). A Practitioners Guide to Computation and Interpretation of
Reliability Indices for Mastery Tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25(1),
–55.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and
second language acquisition (235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of
H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis; Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They
Generate: A Step towards Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 376–401.
Takač, V. P. (2008).Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Takimoto, M. (2007). The Effects of Input-Based Tasks on the Development of Learners Pragmatic Proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–25.
Tanaka, T. (1999). The effect of combination of comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction. JACET Bulletin, 30, 119–133.
Tanaka, T. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does their combined use facilitate second language acquisition? JALT Journal, 23, 6–30.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in Cognitive Science and Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183–203.
Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing Instruction and a Role for Output in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 56(2), 319–385.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
van Zeeland , H., & Schmitt , N. (2013). Incidental vocabulary acquisition through L2 listening: A dimensions approach. System, 41, 609–624.
Waring, R. (2004). A study of receptive and productive learning from word cards. Studies in Foreign Languages and Literature, 21, 94–114.
Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension
and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17–45.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Práxis Educacional
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format; Adapt - remix, transform, and build from the material for any purpose, even commercially. This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the terms of the license.
Under the following terms:
Attribution - You must appropriately give credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if any changes have been made. You may do so in any reasonable way, but not in a way that suggests that you or your use is endorsed by the licensor.
There are no additional restrictions - You cannot apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others to make any use permitted by the license.
