3'' ~éaching and eXplaining vocabulajr

. . * ' .. -...

. . . ~

, ' e . .

6 .

. . ... L I

This chapter looks at teaching. and,learning activities. It looks at the jobs that teaching activities need to perform, how teachers can eom- municate the meanings of words to learners and a wide range of activ- ities for vocabulary teaching and learning.

Learning from teaching and learning activities This section looks at the psychological conditions that need to occur in order for vocabulary learning to take place. It is organised around four questions that teachers should ask about any teaching or learning activity.

activity use to h&&-

3. W h a m o b s e r v a b h s that learning might occur? 4. What are t6e desi n features of the activity which set up the + conditions for learning.

The seaion ends with a detailed look at repetition and vocabulary learning.

Let us first look at a vocabulary teaching technique to see how these

After enough hands are raised, the teacher asks a learner for a transla- tion or explanation of the meaning. The teacher:~ descriptionMght go like this. The word beíng.taught is precise.

, .- 1 :Y ' 'Sometimes ir: is impoktant to níake a 'precise measurement.

Sometimes it is not important to' be precise. boctors need a lot of

Teaching atad explaining vocabulary

~information to find the precise nature of a disease. If you te11 me your precise age, you will te11 me how old you are in years, manths, and days! When you give someone precise instructions, the instructions must be accurate and complete . . .'

When using this technique several things are important. First, not too much kformation is given about the word at the beginning, so -- that the learners have to listen attentively to the word i n a r a w of contexts. Second, the teacher reveats the sentences saving each sen- . " tence at least twice when it is firs; used and going back over the previ- ously said sentences. The teacher does not ask the first learners who raise their hands for the meaning of the word (a translation, a synonym, or a definition), but keevs on desaihiw+eneihmst-&.the ciass havé raised their h&ds. If this technique &;sed properly, the lezrners will have made a very good start to knowing the word precise. It is however easy to use the &chnique badly: by Zving yh_e miáii?ig too quickly, by not repeatinn the sentences, b~ rernovingany--6hIIenge fo-n. This i s z t h e r way of saying thai there are features in the effective use of the technique that encourage learning. These design features are the repetition of the word and its contexts, the presence of a variety of rich contexts, and the need to give careful attention to the word and its contexts in order to be able to complete the activity by working out its meaning.

These features set up conditions that research tells us are important for language acquisition. These conditions include having a positive attitude to the activity (helped by its puzzle-like nature), noticing the

, item severa1 times and thoughtfully processing its meaning. These con- i ditions help reach the vocabulary 1-It is therefore impor-

tant that teachers are aware of the important features of techniques so 1 that they know how to use them and what to look for when they are i being used (see Loschky and Bley-Vroman, 1993: 165).

When the technique is being used the teacher should be looking for signs that it might be achieving its learning goal. These signs include: the learners are interested a d paying alftentinn; they are-m-hd a-wer, and t h e d e answer b o t too soon.

We will now look at each ofthe four questions in detail.

What is the learning goal of the activity?

~ k b l e 3.1; TheilearnSriggoals of gome vocabuhry activities , : .: ; . . . . ,. . : : , ' . i . . ' ' , . ' . ,

. . . .iavlr) . . - ' harning goals .,. ,

~ o r d rneaning, coliocates Learn a stra'tegy Link form to meaning, word meaning Learn a strategy

Lin$ form to meaning, word rneaning Learn a strategy ~ r - & ~ receptive vocabulary into

. . productive use

?t7s my word . . .' Learners present ~ & c h word form, meaning and use words they have met Develop an awareness of what is involved

in knowing a word

teaching and leaming activities, we can answer this question in a very general way by saying a vocabulary learning goal. But we can also be more specific by considering al1 the aspects of what is involved in knowing a word (see Table 2.1) and deciding which of these is the learning goal of the activity. For example, is the learning goal to learn the speiling of some words, their proiunciation, or, more cornrnonly, to recognise a word form and link it to its meaning? In general when looking at learning goals and analysing how a goal will be reached, it is sirnplest to consider only one leaming goal at a time. Most activities however can achieve severa1 learnine: crods. Let us look at some vocab- "" ulary activitie; to see what their specific vocabulary learning goal miaht be.

&I order to reach a goal. the knowled~e or information that rnakes " *

ug that goal needs to be avaiiable. ~nvformation about words, for example words' meanings, can come from textual inuut such as a reading or listening text, or the context provided on a worksheet; information can come from a reference sou;ce such as a t e a c k or a diffwiar;t or it can come from the 1 arners 'in a group who alreaCTy P know something about the word. Newron's (fokhcorning) study found that when learners discussed the meanings of words from a worksheet with each other, the vastmajority of diicussions resulted in useful and accurate kforrnation being pr~vided aboutthe words. This idno't '&rprising. Vbcabulary tests of Jearners who have rougYy the s q e proficiency lev,el usually . , " .,+. show :,-l. 'a remaykable diversity of knbwl- ;e&e (SarGi, ~ 2 i o n . a . n J Meistér, í 97.8) :All'leaijiers usually know the 'h ighki fréquenty i&ds', hn8 &eFr'zh;o;.;!iarneis;:know m*?' 6f the ,.. . r ;+

. . . . : ,>,! ' ., . .. , ..' r . !' .

Teaching.and expiaining vocabulary 63

1 other words appropriate to their leve1 of proficiency. Newton (1993), i! for example, found that in his pre-test to the speaking tasks, 35% of

the 11 1 tested words were known by al1 learners, 54% by one or more ! learners but not everyone, and 11% were not known by anyone. it t was the 54% that were known by at least one person that could most ; usefully be discussed by the learners. In addition, the leamers could : use the context clues to work out the meanings of the words that '

nobody knew before the activity.

$ What psychological conditions does the activity use to belp reach tbe learning goal? There are three important general processes that may lead to a word being remembered. These comprise noticing (through formal instruc- tion, negotiation, the need to comprehend or produce, awareness od inefficiencies), retrieval, and creative (generative) use. These processes can be viewed as three steps with the later steps including the earlier steps.

Noticing The first process encouraging learning is noticing, that is giving atten- tion to an item. This means that learners need to notice the word, and be aware of it as a useful language item (see EUis, 1991; McLaughlin, 1990; Schmidt, 1990 for discussions of noticing). This noticing may be affected by severa1 factors, including the salience of the word in the textual input or in the discussion of the text, previous contact that the learners have had with the word, and learners' realisation that the word fills a gap in their knowledge of the language (Schmidt and Frota, 1986; Ellis, 1990). Noticing also occurs when learners look up a word in a dictionary, deliberately study a word, guess from context, or have a word explained to them.

M&&on andJmxes+ are irnportant enabling for n-.The choice of content can be a major factor stimu&ing inter-

: est. h his study of leaming from listening, Elley (1989: 185) found quite different results from the sarne learners listening to two different stories. Tliis seemed to have been.due to the lack of involvement of the learners in one of the sto~ies because of its sarangeness, lack of

opportunity far other conditions favouring learning to take effect. '

Although there is no generally accepted.theory of why interest is 1 irnponant and the 'faetors that arouse interesr, teachers need to watch

m 'A 2 !<

P ;r"

2' 49 $a X Q

1 F C..

X 3 09 F

i Q- E:

3-

@6 a TeazlPing and explaining vocabulary

#.(,1982), which foimd that more elaborate definicions tended to be con- $ ~ s i r i ~ < ~ a t h e r than helpful. Several studies of learning from lists or

;.Bw&oards (Nation, 1982) have shown that for many learners learn- &giz;fa- of the word is co ua e

slation i i n t language transLtions a-d u t% ~tion in that.theyare short and draw directly-on familiar ex- ,perience. , . .

Like negotiation, defining while telling a story is a form of decontex- tuakisation, that ic, focusinn attention on words as words rather than -- asgartsaf ii 6 e . h order to increase incidental v-ary iearni .ing while listening to a story, teachers can puf target words on the bJ&IIb,aard as b y o c q point to theqymT+he bl&kboard.J they recur, tramlate theNdefine thern s i r n w a n d encourage learners to negotiate their meaning with the t u a c ~ l l i s and Heimbach (1997), working with young learners of Engiish as a second language, found that a group negotiating with the teacher was more effective for vocabulary learning than when there was individual negotiation in one-to-one interaction with the teacher. A variant of story telling is for the teacher to read the storv to a varticular learner who is set UD to n e w e with the teacher &hile the rest of class are ea@oDwri on the s t o r y m g a n d negotiation. E f l d ~ e (1 999) found learner to learner riegotia-ive for older l ea rngw

An argument against the decontextualisation of vocabulary is the teachabilitv hvvothesis (Pienernam. 1985) which araues that ex~licit teaching o i la&^^ will not'be effictive if thilearners a& not at -e of language developmp. It is 11-

vocabulary learninn is not affected by developrnental sequences and thus expljcit teach=ing has the potential to-directly contribute to implicit knowledge (Ellis, 1990). If this is true, then the temporary decontextualisation of vocabulary items during a rnessage focused task like listening to a story is of major benefit to second language pro- ficiency.

Te?chers can have a direct influence on noticing in speaking and writbg m k s by giving thought to. where wanted vocabulary items are placed in the written input, and by some form of pre-teaching or 'consciousness-raising? of wanted items before the activity. Teachers can., use a range of attention drawing techniques in listening and reading tasks to ebcoutage noticing.

. C . , - 8 ..a. . . .

Retiieval .:: %

. 1

The second major process zthat may lead to a word being remembered is ~etrieval (Baddeley,~;l990: 156). A word may be noticed and its

t Teaching and explaining vocabulary 67

T S

meaning comprehended in the textual input to the task, through i teacher explanation or dictionary use. If that word is subsequently I re~rieved during the task then the memoty of that word will be

i'

I l

and having to retrieve its spoken or written form as in speakinn or - writing. ~&ieval does not occur if the form and its meanLg are

nd Fairbanks, 1986) have shown j the importante of repetition as a factor in incidental vocabulary learn- , ing. As Baddeley (1990: 156) suggests, it is not simply repetition which

is important but the repeated opportunity to retrieve the item which is to be learned. When learners hear or see the form of the word, they need to retrieve what they know of its meaning. This retrieval is likely to be retrieval of ideas stored frorn previous meetings and retrieval of content and information from the present meeting. Baddeley suggests that each retrieval of a word strengthens the path linking form and meaning and makes subsequent retrieval easier. It may be possible to calculate how much input, in terms of number of running words, a learner needs to get within a certain time in order for there to be an opportunity to meet a met word again before the memory of the previous meeting much time has passed between the previous meeting encounter with the word, then the

nter is effectively not a repetition but is like a first a memory of the previous meeting with the present errcounter can add to and strengthen

that memory. There are two major factors involved in such a calcula- tion: the learner's vocabulary size, and the length of time that the memory of a meeting with a word lasts.

The learner's vocabulary size. The more words a learner knows, the I

less frequently occurring are the next words he or she needs SO learn. For example, if we use figures from the Francis and KuCera (1982) fre- quency count, a learner who knows 1,000 different words would have

[ to read or listen to 10,000 running words in order for a word at the 1,008-word level to be repeated. If the learner knew 2,000 different

/ words, she would have to read or listen to 20,000 running words, on 1 average, for a word at the 2,000 level to be repeated. The larger the

vocabulary size, the greater the quantity of language that needs to be 1 processed in order to meet the words to be learned again. 6 The length of time rbat tbe memory of a meetimg with a word lasts. I A repetition can only be! effective if the repetition is seen by the learner U

ptyp. r ':& Teaching and kxpiaining vocnbukiry

ÉO be a repetition. That is, there must be some memory of the previous meetmg withsthe word. 4 critica1 factor is the length of time that such ,a a imary h t s : Delayed post-tests of vocabuldry. Iemning indicate .&at niiemory far words can last seved weeks. Elley (1989) found the m&b& for the new words remained after three months,Elley's design howeVér involved three repetitions of thestories and aldo incorporated some use of definitions. Brett, Rothlein and Hurley (1996) found that wards.were still remembered after sixweeks. Their design wed saial- ised stslies wirh definitions. EUis, Tmakavand Yamazaki (1994) used two post-tests - otie tivo days &r the meatment, and one about a morith later. A more sensititre delayed post-test about two anda half months after theStratjment wac also used and showed that the kam- ind was still retained. Bearing in rnind that the treatments in the three studies allowed some repeated dpportunities to meet the unknown words and also involved some deliberate focusing on the words through definition or negotiation, a coqservative i-on would be that we could reasonably expect learq+s to r i orv for a meetine with a wd at least a month later; Th- of how long a memory for a word-t be very inexact as there are numerous factors affecting such a memdry, including the quality of the meeting with a word. Research indicates that repetitions need to be increasingly spaced with a short gap between early meetings and much larger gaps between later meetings (Pimsleur, 1967; Baddeley, 1990: 156-158). Thus the number of previous meetings with the word will influence the length of time a memory remains.

However, with these cautions in mind, it is very useful to try to esti- mate how much listening and reading a leamer would need to be doing per week in qrder for incidental receptive vocabulary learning to proceed in an efgective way. This is looked at more closely im the .s&iOn on simplification in chapter 5, but on average leamers would need to listen to stories at least three times a week for about fifteen minutes each time. They would need to read about one graded reader

tw9 weeks (Nation, 1997; Nation and Wang, 1999). .

, . 2 . ,

5r;eati.ve: . > . or keqerative . , use .The fhird m+r process that may lead to a word being remembered is generatiog. 33xei.e is liuw a n increasing number of studies that show

Teaching and explaining vocabulary 69

edge of that word. For example, if a learner has met the ward cement used as a verb as in 'We cemented the path' and then meets 'We cemented our relationship with a drink', the learner will need to rethink the meaning and uses of cement and this will help firmly estab-

S lish the memory of this word. Generative use is not restriaed to meta- phorical extension of word meaning and can apply to a range of variations from inflection through collocation and gramrnatical context to reference and meaning. Joe (1995) found that quality of knowledge as measured by three different tests of each word was closely related to the degree of generative use of each word in a retell- ing task. R. Ellis (1995) found that a factor he called 'range' was sig- nificantly celated to vocabulary learning in a negotiated listening task. The task involved second language learners listening to directions and having to place items on a picture. 'Range' referred to the number of separate directions that a word occurred;n, and could be considered a kind of measure of generativeness. Stahl and Vancil (1986) found that discussion was a crucial factor in learning vocabulary from semantic mapping. The discussion presumably provided an opportunity for the new vocabulary to appear in differing forms and contexts. Elley (1989) found that pictorial context for a word in a story was a signif- icant factor in vocabulary learning from listening to stories. Although it is stretching the idea of generative use to make a picture a generative use of a word, the accompanirnent of a text by a picture, like genera- tive use, can lead to a form of mental elaboration that deepens or enriches the leve1 of processing of a word (Baddeley, 1990: 160-177) and thus enhances learning. Our knowledge of the nature of genera- tive use and the classification of uses into different degreh of genera- tivity is still sketchy. Negotiation improves learning not onl > through decontextualisation but possibly also through the opportunity for generative use. During negotiation a word is used i n m - q t t variety of inflected or &$ved f o r w often witli re'ference to a variety of in-. 7ZñGation; or generative processing, can also be receptive or pro- ductive. In its receptive form it involves meeting a w o d which is used in new ways in listening or reading. In its productive form, it involves producing new ways of using the wanted vocabulary in new contexts (Wittsock, 1974; 1991). This means that a word is used generatively if it is used in speaking in a way which is different from its use in the textual input. '

There are degrees of generation. Generation occurs, but is low, if the linguistic COnteM for the word is only slightly' different from the textual input. For example, chronic pain becomes very chronic pain.

Generation is high if the word is .used in a substantiall~ different

. . 8 ; . : <

70 ,, ,Teacbing and explaining vocabulaty

way,. . . Y ,. perhaps . indicating thaf.the 6í;1 has begun to be integrated into the{legrqci?s language s y i t e d g r example, chronic pain becornes chz~tiic hachche ar. chronic illness. -,.'Joe (1;9%j found -that degrée of generation was clasely related to amoun! of.learning in retellingtasb. Newton (1993) found that nego- tiation ofihe rneaning of a word greatly increased its chance-o€ being learned, Negotiation of the meaning of a word will usually involve generative.use~of that word during the negotiation. The most striking receptive generative uses of vocab,ulary are those where meeting the word in a new context forces leamers to reconceptualise the meaning that they previously had for that word.

In a welltontrolled experiment, Hall (1991; 1992) looked at the effect of split inforrnation tasks .on the learning of the mathematics vocabulary parallel, diagonal, vertical, perimiter. The experiment involved a comparison of split information pairs, teacher-fronted learning and individual study. Al1 groups made gains in vocabulary learning, but the split inforrnation group made significantly more than the other groups. An analysis of the transcripts showed that there was a low correlation (.36) between total e x p o d e to the words and learn- ing&ut that there was a high correlation (-92) benveen learning and the nurnber of uses of the words not closely dependent on inputjfhis means that having to produce the words in ways which are not just repetitions of the written exercise material results in superior learning.

'Instantiation' (Anderson, Stevens, Shifrin and Osborn, 1978) may

we see an actu4 ball when we meet the wor form ball. Notice that it is possible to learn vocabulary without instantiation. For exarnple, when using word cards to make L2-L1 connections, it is possible to look at the L2 word and recall its L1 translation without thinking of a particular instance of the meaning. It rnay be that an important reason why using words in real life situations helps learning is that each use involves instantiation. That is, each use is connected with a.particular meaningful exarnple.

Stahl (1985, cited in Stahl and Fairbanks, 1986) suggests a three- point scale for describing depth of processing for vocabulary.

1. Association - learning a form-meaning comection. 2. Comprehension - recalling the meaning of a previously met item, 3. Generation - producing a novel response to an item such as

restating a definitiop in different words or making an original .. . . . . . Sentence. . . . . , . . . 3 . .,-. , ,

These levels roughly correspond .to the levels of noticing, retrieving, and generating used here.

Teaching and explaining vocabulary 71

Table 3.2. Taks and amount of invol~ement for v o c a b ~ l a ~ learning

Task Need Search Evaluation Reading with questions. Words - - -

glossed are not relevant to the task ~ i d i n ~ yjth questions. Words +

glossed are relevant to the task

Reading with questions. Needed + words looked up

Read aad fiii in given words + Write sentences using given words + Writing a composition ++ ++ ++

Notes: - = no involvement load, + = moderate involvement, ++ = strong involvement

Laufer and Hulstijn (in press) investigated the effect of what they called 'task involvement' on incidental vocabulary learning. They saw involvement as being affected by three features in tasks. Their descrip- tion of these features can be seen as an atternpt to operationalise levels o€ processing.

Need. Need does not exist if the target vocabulary is not needed to complete the task. Need is moderate if the task requires the target vocabulary, and it is strong if the learner feels the need for the vocabulary. It is an attitudinal component of involvement. Search. Search does not exist if the word forrns or their rneanings are supplied as a part o€ the task. Search is moderate if kacms hav . of the item, and s&srn_eas h --meaning This parallels r-ibed above, and can mvolve a mental search or search in a dictionary.

: Evaluation. Evaluation involves deciding if a word choice is appropriate or not. Evaluation is moderate if the context is Provided and is strong if the learner has to create a context. Choosing between sub-entries in a dictionary entry involves evaluation.

i, 1nvolvem.ent ,is affeaed by each of these features and they can occur i in combitiation. Laufer and Hulstijn's research shows that the greater ,

the invo1v:vtment load, the xhore effective the learning.' Tab'ie 3.2:coritains some tasks with an, aiialysis of their involvement 1 load.

Teaching end expíaining vocabulary

What are the obsepáble signs tbatfear&gmight oc&r? . 2

Most conditions in action have some observable sign. Negotiation, repetition, generative use, involvernent and successful completion of a task are among the most observable. Deep processing, fwus on the meaning and the need to comprehend are less directly obDiCniable. Presence of the signs does not guarantee learning, btit looking for them may help a teacher decide if an activity needs adapting, We have already seen earlier in this chapter how observen of negotiation seem to learn just as well as those who aetively negotiate. If a teacher sees that learners are negotiating then this should be considered as a posi- tive sign for both negotiators and those learners who observe the nego- tiation.

What are the design features of the activity which set up the conditions for learning? Design features such as split information, shared information, types of outcomes, and the presence of unfamiliar items in written input, encourage the occurrence of learning conditions. Shared and split information tasks encourage the negotiation of meaning. Removal of written input may encourage retrieval of vocabulary.

It is useful for teachers to be aware that the design features that help a particular technique achieve a learning goal are also present in other techniques, and it is possible to create and adapt techniques that have those features.

P

Designing activities to encourage noticing 4

If words occur in important parts of the written input to a task they are likely to be noticed. The chances of a word being noticed can be increased by pre-teaching, highlighting the word in the text by using underlining, italics or bold letters, and glossing the word. .

-.

Designing activities to encourage retrieval

Aq effective way to get repeated retrieval is to read the same story several times. With younger.children this is not difficult.to do and is welcomed by them. Older learners may not be so receptive; A second ob&&% t6 ~efialisq!~d . ,, . lb& . Gtbry, that is, t6 read a rhapter ?t a time. There is a teridency G: c,ont:inu~us . , : - . , . - stories for vocabylary t8 be repeated, Teachk+ , co ,~ ld , niaxirnise k ,- . .. tliii: by briefly iktellik what happe&d previqusly ih. %he?itory before continuing with the next

~ e a c h i n ~ and explaining vocabulary

instalment. Much research still needs to be done on the effect of a con- tinuous story on repetition. Hwang and Nation (1989) looked at the effect on repetition of reading follow-up newspaper stories on the same topic. They found that follow-up stories provided better repeti- tion of vocabulary than unrelated stories.

The repeated readings or the serial instalrnents should not be too far apart. Listening to a story two or three times a week is likely to be more beneficia1 than once a week. If the teacher notes target vocabu- lary on the board as it occurs in the story, it is best to put it up just after it is heard rather than before. This will encourage retrieval rather than recognition.

Teachers can design retrieval into speaking activities by making it necessary for learners to reuse words that occurred in the textual input. This can be done by making the task involve retelling of the textual input, by making the task involve a procedure whereby the same material has to be discussed or presented severa1 times through a change in group membership as in the 'pyramid' procedure (Jordan, 1990), or by making the solution to the task involve considerable dis- cussion of the information provided in the textual input, as in a problem solving discussion.

In a strip story activity (Gibson, 1975) the learners are each given a sentence to memorise from a paragraph. They then must te11 their sen- tences to each other and decide whose sentence is first, second and so on. No writing is allowed. Because the learners must memorise their sentences, th-trieve them each time they te11 them.;o the rest of the group. Memorisation thus ensures a h m u f s U k d - Designing activities to encourage generation

Teachers can try to affect the quality of the mental processing of vocabulary while learners listen to input in the following ways.

Rather than read the same story several times, as in the Elley

simpl&ed readers. If the teacher is able to supplement the story telling with pictures, by using blackboard drawings, an OHP or a blown-up book, then this will contribute positively to vocabulary learning. .

A

Table 3.3. The conditions of leartting, signs and features in activities witb a vocabulary learning goal

Psychological conditions Signs that the conditions are likely to Design features of the activity that promote the encouraging learning be occurring conditions

Noticing a word The-ary Definition, glosses, highlighting

1 The l e a ~ ~ h i ~ 8 ~ t i Unknown words in salient positions The ka3sne-1~d -

RetelJn&s- . . Retrieving a word The learner pauses tuecall a meanipg t-

The learn r oransult a ac_t-- SS

The learn=pralce_s =rreviwsl.g unknown word .--

Using the word generatively Th e u c e s a y~ r&xuuew Role play based on written input sentwgaatext Retelling without the input text

The l e ~ p g & ~ a s c c i a i i a w , causal Brainstorming links, e ~ . , /'

3,gi Teaching and esrplaining vocabulary

only be known, they must be known well so that they can be fluently acc$~sed. Repetition thus adds to the quality of knowledge and also to the quantity or strength of this knowlcdge.

There has been a great deal of research on how items should be repeated and much of this is relevant to learning vocabulary in another language.

The spacing of repetitions

A very robust finding in memory research in general (Baddeley, 1990) and second language vocabulary learning research in particular (Bloom and Shuell, 1981; Dempster, 1987) is that sp&ed repetition results in more secure learning th.an massed repetition. Massed repeti- tion involves spending a coñtinuous period 3 time, say fifteen

ed attention tc-a-wm Y- petitions acEsssa- eriod of

spending more time in total on the study of the words,For example, the words might be studied for three minutes now, another three minutes a few hours 1% three minutes a later, three minutes two days later and finally three mihutes a w 4" ek IatepThe total study time is fifteen minutes, but it is spread across ten or more daywThis spaced repetition results in learning that will be remembered for a long period of time.The repetitions should be spaced at increasingly larger inter- vals.

Seibert (1927), Anderson and Jordan (1928) and Seibert (1930) investigated retention over periods of up to eight weeks. Their findings are al1 in agreement with Pimsleur's (1967) memory schedule/h.lost forgetting occurs imrnediately after initial learning and then, as time pases, .&e rate of forgetting becomes slaver. Anderson and Jordan measured recall immediately after leaming, after one week, after three weeks and after eight weeks. ifhe percentage of material retained were 66%, 48%, 39% and 37% respectively A l is indicates that the repetition of new items should occur very soon after they are first stdied;.before too much forgetting occurs. After this the repetitions can be spaced further apart. Griffin (1992) a o found that most for- getting sedms to'occur soon after learning. 2'

Bahrick (1984) and Bahrick and Phelps (1987) examined the recall of second language vocabulary items after very long periods of non- use, from 8 to 50 years. They found that the nature of the original learning influenced recal1:Items which were initially easy to learn and which were given wideiy S~aced prapice (intervals of 30 days) were most liikely to be rerain??&,over &hhy 'years. The memory curyes showed a deceleisftinb d'rap 'for i& .firsi 3 ta 6 years and then little

1 B e Tedching and explaining vocabulary 77

[ change up to 25 to 30 years after which there was further decline. Bahrick and Phelps' research supports the well established finding of the superiority of spaced over massed practice.

Pimsleur (1967), in a very clear and useful article, proposes a m e q h e d u l e to act as a guide for the size of the s

etitions. ~irn3eur.s suggestion, based on resea etween each repetition should become larger, with the

initial repetitions being closer together and the later repetitions much further apart. There is no particular Feason why the spacing between the repetitions should be a matter of precise measurement, but it is interesting to look at Pimsleur's scale as a rough guide for the type of spacing suggested. The scale is exponential, so if rhe first interval was five seconds, then the next interval should be 52 = 25 seconds, the next S3 = 125 seconds, and the next 54 = 625 seconds (about 10 minutes) and so on. Table 3.4 applies the calculation across 11 repetitions.

The general principle-which lies behind the spacing is ihat the older a ceok ng 1s . This means two thSngs. F i w p i e c e -1s initially very fast and then slows down. Secondly, on the second repetition a piece of learn- ing is older than it was on the first repetition and so the forgetting on the second repetition will be slower than it was. On the third repeti- tion the forgetting will be even slower. The right probability of recall leve1 is one where the learner has forgotten enough to feel that the rep- etition is worthwhile attending to and yet not forgotten too much so that there is still a good chance of recalling and thereby strengthening the form-meaning connection.

Baddeley (1990: 154-155) speculates that, because long-term learn- ing depends sical c b i. the b, spacing repetitions allows time&regeneration of n w subsrances that

ke thes Massed learning tloes not allow enough time for t e r e g e n e r a t e and thus they cannot continue to make the physical changes needed for learning. This explanation is still a matter for debate and investigation.

Mondria and Mondria-de Vries (1994) describe the 'hand com- puter' as a way of organising and focusing repetition. The hand corn- putzr is sifnply a box divided into five sections, with the second section larger than the first, the third larger than the second and so on. The words to be leamed are put on cards and initially go into section 1. When a word is known it is put into section 2. When section 2 fills up the words in there are reviewed and those that are still known go into section 3 and those not recalled go back to seaion 1. The same proce- dure continues for sections 3 ,4 and 5, with words not recalled going back to section l. This procedure can be easily computerised.

Teaching and explaining v~cabzklar~ 79

not only depends on the spacing of the repe- . . titions but also on the natur-. If there is a. delay between the presentation of a word form and its meaning, learners have an opportunity to make an effort to guess or recall the meaning, and presumably this extra effort will result in faster and Ionger retained karning. However, the guessing can only be successful if the foreign word form gives a good clue to its meaning, either because the foreign and native words are cognateS/ór because the w d f o q and its trahslation have p r e v i o u s e n -Experimental evi- dence shows that~imultaneous presentation of a word form and its meaning is best for the first encounter and, thereafter, delayed presen- tation is best because fhen the possibility of effort leading to successful recall.

In an experiment by Royer (1973) the learners saw each foreign word and its English translation simultaneously on the first trial and guessed by attempting to recall on subsequent trials. The group who were studying under the recalling roce dure learned significantly more correct responses on a test given imrnediately after the learning ses- sions. S u c c e s s f ~ i n c r e a s e s the chances that something will he

r remembered. Ret-r than simpiv -o strsngthen t h e ~ t r i p v k m t e (Baddel Xandauer and Bjork (1978: 631) suggest that retrieval may be more effective than simultaneously seeing the word and its meaning because retrieval involves greater effort, or because retrieval is more similar to

d during normal use. a very irnportant part of the strategy of using 8). It is the main j u s t i f i e n for u d S

instead Learners need to know the importante of retrieval and how to make it a part of the whole range of their learn- ing activities. -words in listeninp and r e a d i n n r o v i d e s an opport 1 r retrievai as does u s i n ~ wo-aking an-. T e a c h e z l d tolerate snd allow for delays in retrieving vocabulary

: in the strands of meaning-focused input and meaning-focused output , because the retrievals are contributing to learning. The combination of

sp'aced repetition with r e t r - r a t e g y that Baddeley considers is -1icable (1990: 158).

#. So far, we have been looking at repetition as being repetition of the : same m a t e r i p is, the repetition contributes mainly to strength of "nowledge,. owever, repetition can extend and enrich previous meet-

iagr. Table 3.5 outlines some of the e i l i t i e ; There are many degree-pen mg on the closeness of .- ..-