5. Receptive, productive, and receptive + productive L2 vocabulary learning: what difference does it make?

2004 ◽  
pp. 79-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Arjen Mondria ◽  
Boukje Wiersma
Keyword(s):  
Vocabulary Learning ◽  
L2 Vocabulary

Mobile-assisted vocabulary learning: Investigating receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge of Chinese EFL learners

ReCALL ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Yan Li ◽  
Christoph A. Hafner
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Vocabulary Learning ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Mobile Technologies ◽  
Word Knowledge ◽  
Mobile Platforms ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Learning Group ◽  
Chinese University ◽  
L2 Vocabulary

Abstract Considerable research has been conducted on the advancement of mobile technologies to facilitate vocabulary learning and acquisition in a second language (L2). However, whether mobile platforms lead to a comprehensive mastery of both receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge has seldom been addressed in previous literature. This study investigated English vocabulary learning from engagement with mobile-based word cards and paper word cards in the context of the Chinese university classroom. A total of 85 undergraduate students were recruited to take part in the study. The students were divided into two groups, a mobile learning group and a paper-based learning group, and tested on two word knowledge components: receptive knowledge of the form–meaning connection and productive knowledge of collocations. Both the digital and non-digital word cards enhanced L2 vocabulary learning, and the results showed that the mobile application (app) promoted greater gains than physical word cards.

scholarly journals Context, word, and student predictors in second language vocabulary learning

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVELIEN MULDER ◽  
MARCO VAN DE VEN ◽  
ELIANE SEGERS ◽  
LUDO VERHOEVEN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Vocabulary Learning ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Levenshtein Distance ◽  
Context Word ◽  
Learning Gain ◽  
English Sentence ◽  
Contextual Support ◽  
L2 Vocabulary

ABSTRACTWe examined to what extent the variation in vocabulary learning outcomes (vocabulary knowledge, learning gain, and rate of forgetting) in English as a second language (L2) in context can be predicted from semantic contextual support, word characteristics (cognate status, Levenshtein distance, word frequency, and word length), and student characteristics (prior vocabulary knowledge, reading ability, and exposure to English) in 197 Dutch adolescents. Students were taught cognates, false friends, and control words through judging sentences with varying degrees of semantic contextual support using a pretest/posttest between subjects design. Participants were presented with an English target word and its Dutch translation, followed by an English sentence. They were instructed to judge the plausibility of the sentence. Mixed-efffects models indicated that learning gains were higher for sentences with more semantic contextual support and in students with stronger reading comprehension skills. We were the first to show that Levenshtein distance is an important predictor for L2 vocabulary learning outcomes. Furthermore, more accurate as well as faster learning task performance lead to higher learning outcomes. It can thus be concluded that L2 study materials containing semantically supportive contexts and that focus on words with little L1-L2 overlap are most effective for L2 vocabulary learning.

Incidental L2 Vocabulary Learning: An Impracticable Term?

2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Bruton ◽  
Miguel García López ◽  
Raquel Esquiliche Mesa
Keyword(s):  
Vocabulary Learning ◽  
L2 Vocabulary

scholarly journals Explicit Teaching and Incidental Learning of Vocabulary: Where Is the Pendulum Swinging to?

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 445
Author(s):  
Faisal Al-Homoud
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Incidental Learning ◽  
Vocabulary Learning ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
General Tendency ◽  
Explicit Teaching ◽  
Incidental Exposure ◽  
Knowledge Form ◽  
L2 Vocabulary ◽  
Target Words

The research at hand compared two conditions of L2 vocabulary exposures, i.e. incidental exposure and a mixture of incidental and explicit exposures to words. Forty-five female participants, majoring in English at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn-Saud Islamic University, Saudi Arabia participated in this research. They were divided into two groups: Reading Only (RO) and Reading Extra (RE). In the RO group, the target words were exposed only through a reading passage that they read twice, while the same target words for the RE group were inserted in the same reading passage, then explained directly by the teacher. Three levels of vocabulary knowledge (form recall, meaning recall, and meaning recognition) were assessed. The results showed that both conditions cater for vocabulary learning, however the RE group had significantly outperformed their RO counterparts. Moreover, the results showed that vocabulary learning in this study followed the general tendency starting from a receptive level to a productive level.

THE RETRIEVABILITY OF L2 ENGLISH MULTIWORD ITEMS IN A CONTEXT OF STRONGLY FORM-FOCUSED EXPOSURE

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Seth Lindstromberg ◽  
June Eyckmans
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Mental Representations ◽  
Vocabulary Learning ◽  
Semantic Variable ◽  
Strong Focus ◽  
Production Research ◽  
L2 Vocabulary ◽  
Focus On Forms ◽  
Positive Effect

Although retrieval of lexical forms is a prerequisite for language production, research of L2 vocabulary learning has focused much more on meanings and form-meaning mappings than on development of detailed, accessible mental representations of forms. This is particularly true with respect to multi-word items (MWIs). We report an experimental study involving a variety of intra-lexical, usage-based, and interlingual co-determinants of L2 vocabulary learnability pertaining to MWIs. Each learner (N = 60) encountered a randomly allocated set of 26 two-word MWIs (Nsets = 4) semi-randomly drawn from a larger pool of MWIs. Learners were asked to remember either the 13 MWIs showing the form variable assonance (e.g., change shape) or the 13 nonassonant control MWIs (e.g., sound good). Posttests of form recall revealed a large, durable effect of the focusing task in combination with forewarning of testing. Except when MWI concreteness (a semantic variable) was high, assonance had a positive effect on retrievability in recall tests given after delays of 15 minutes and one week. There was a consistent effect of the semi-semantic variable Mutual Information. Even in the context of a strong focus on forms, form variables are not the only variables that matter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document