‘Incidental + Intentional’ vs ‘Intentional + Incidental’ Vocabulary Learning: Which is More Effective?

This study compares the effectiveness of two combinations of new vocabulary learning techniques: ‘incidental + intentional’ and ‘intentional + incidental’. For the incidental part, the participants viewed 3 hours of captioned authentic videos, whereas for the intentional one they were asked to do a set of tasks with the target vocabulary at home. Three aspects of the target words were tested: form recognition, meaning recall and written use in a sentence. The overall scores revealed better performance of the ‘incidental + intentional’ condition in the three tests. Nevertheless, a variety of scores in the sample for the three aspects of word knowledge and the lack of statistical evidence did not allow us to conclude with certainty which combination is more or less effective for new vocabulary learning.

Intentions help children learn meaningful rules*

ABSTRACTThe present study investigated the roles of pattern detection capacities and understanding of intentions in children's learning of linguistic rules. We taught two-year-olds a Hebrew morphological distinction between noun and verb forms using two different training protocols. The protocols were identical in all parameters except that only in an Intentional, but not in a Control condition, were children introduced to the stimuli in an intentional communicative context. We found that children learned the morphological rule only in the Intentional condition. Thus, besides their pattern detection capacities, children's understanding of intentions substantially boosts their learning of meaningful rules.

Depth of Processing and Text Recall in Adulthood

The depth of processing model suggests that incidental learning occurs at various “depths” corresponding to the degree of semantic analysis. Because deep processing is associated with improved recall, and because older adults generally perform at a lower level than younger adults, this model has been applied to aging research. The present study examined the validity of this model by comparing a sample of three German adult age groups with a similar sample in an earlier American study. Specifically, subjects read a 500-word narrative under one of four conditions: (a) a shallow, nonsemantic orienting task; (b) and (c) two deep, semantic orienting tasks; or (d) an intentional condition. Results indicated that, overall, younger adults performed better than older adults, that recall in the intentional condition was significantly better than in the two deep processing conditions, and recall in these conditions was better than in the shallow condition. Cross-sample comparisons and subsequent implications for the validity of the model are discussed.

Heart Rate, Recall, and Reaction-Time Measures of Levels of Processing

A problem of circularity emerges in any attempt to index depth by retention alone. In the present study, reaction time (RT), and heart-rate response were used to index the three qualitatively distinct levels of physical, phonemic, and semantic processing. An additional objective was to distinguish between the three levels under incidental vs intentional learning conditions. Subjects were 46 male undergraduates who were given 30 trials. A trial consisted of the presentation of an orienting question and an imperative word-stimulus separated by a 6-sec. interval. There were three types of questions in order to induce processing to one of the three target levels. The results indicated that recall as well as heart-rate acceleration distinguished between two (physical vs phonemic and semantic) rather than three levels of processing in the incidental condition. Heart-rate change differentiated between incidental and intentional, the intentional condition showing a smaller change. Semantic and phonemic RTs were faster than physical RT, but there were no differences between semantic and phonemic RTs. Intentional recall was superior to incidental recall. It is suggested that psychophysiological indices can provide independent evidence for ‘levels of processing.’