writing_voca1.pdf

7/29/2019 writing_voca1.pdf

1/21

273TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 40, No. 2, June 2006

The Effect of Type of Written Exerciseon L2 Vocabulary Retention

Keith S. FolSe

University of Central Florida

Orlando, Florida, United States

The present study used a within-subjects design to examine the eect

o the type o written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. Using inputor the meaning and usage o the new words rom a specially preparedminidictionary, university intensive English program students (n 5 154)practiced target vocabulary in three types o written exercises conditions:one fll-in-the-blank exercise, three fll-in-the-blank exercises, and oneoriginal-sentence-writing exercise. An unannounced posttest using amodifed version o the vocabulary knowledge scale tested the meaningo the word (L1 translation or L2 synonym) and usage o the word ina student-written sentence. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed thatmean scores or the three exercise types were signifcantly dierent romeach other, with words practiced under the three fll-in-the-blank exer-cises condition retained much better than those practiced under eithero the other two exercise conditions. The fndings suggest the importanteature o a given L2 vocabulary exercise is not depth o word processingbut number o word retrievals required. This result has implications orlanguage teachers, curriculum designers, and, in particular, materialswriters o traditional workbooks and CALL materials.

ESL learners soon discover that their lack o vocabulary knowledgeimpedes their ability to comprehend or express themselves clearlyin English. Research highlights the importance o vocabulary knowledgeor second language (L2) learners in reading (Haynes & Baker, 1993;Huckin & Bloch, 1993), speaking (Hincks, 2003; Joe, 1998), in listening

(Elley, 1989; Ellis, 1994), and writing (Hinkel, 2001; Lauer & Nation,1995; Lee, 2003; Leki & Carson, 1994; Walters & Wol, 1996). Schmitt(2000) notes that L2 students need approximately 2,000 words to main-tain conversations, 3,000 word amilies to read authentic texts, and asmany as 10,000 words to comprehend challenging academic texts. It isnot surprising that learners see English vocabulary acquisition as theirgreatest language problem (Green & Meara, 1995) and express a strongdesire or explicit vocabulary instruction (James, 1996). ESL teachers,


2/21

274 TESOL QUARTERLY

curriculum developers, and materials writers have responded with morevocabulary teaching materials, including even whole vocabulary series(Byrd, Reid, & Schuemann, in press; McCarthy, ODell, & Shaw, 1997).

The past decade has also seen a dramatic increase in works on keyareas in L2 vocabulary learning, including the learners, the words, andthe teacher (Folse, 2004; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000). Research haslooked at which vocabulary learning strategies learners use (Kojic-Sabo& Lightbown, 1999; Lessard-Clouston, 1994; Nassaji, 2003; Prince, 1995;Sanaoui, 1995; Schmitt & Schmitt, 1993) and how L2 learners vocabular-ies develop (Lauer, 1998; Lauer & Paribakht, 1998; Parry, 1993; Schmitt,1998). Research has also considered how many words L2 learners need toknow (Hulstijn, Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996) and which words learnersneed to know (Coxhead, 2000; Liu, 2003). Research on the methodology

o vocabulary teaching fnds that explicit teaching o vocabulary results inbetter retention than incidental learning rom natural text-based inputsuch as book passages or dictionary entries (Chun & Plass, 1996; Hulstijn,Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996; Knight, 1994; Lauer, 1997; Lauer &Shmueli, 1997; Nassaji, 2003; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Prince, 1995;Zimmerman, 1997) and that the keyword method, the lone vocabularyteaching method extensively studied, consistently produces L2 vocabularygains (Brown & Perry, 1991; Jones, 1995).

L2 vocabulary research has looked at the learner, the words, and themethod o presentation. Surprisingly little work has been conductedon the next step in learning vocabulary in a ormal classroom setting,namely the written practice activities that ollow the presentation o anynew vocabulary. This study flls this gap by comparing two o the mostcommonly used types o written vocabulary exercises: flling in the blank(i.e., cloze) and original sentence writing. Through empirical results, thisstudy contributes valuable inormation on vocabulary teaching to L2

learners, teachers, and textbook and curriculum designers.

l2 Vocabulary exerciSeS

Vocabulary exercises vary greatly according to which aspect o wordknowledge is being practiced. Besides a words meaning, exercises also

ocus on other aspects o word knowledge, including the words spelling,part o speech, morphology, meanings in a specifc context, connotation,usage, synonyms, antonyms, and collocations. In addition, the directionsor a given exercise vary considerably. These two actors aect the amounto time required, degree o difculty, the type o retrieval (active or pas-sive), and the number o vocabulary retrievals.


3/21

EFFECT OF WRITTEN EXERCISE ON L2 VOCABULARY RETENTION 275

th Vu o Win Vocbuy exciss

Native speakers learn the bulk o L1 vocabulary rom natural input,with reading playing a large role. For L2 learners, the role o reading invocabulary acquisition is important; the actual learning that takes place,however, is slow and unpredictable. According to Paribakht and Wesche(1999),

From the perspective o a language teaching program which aims at developinglearners reading prociency and related receptive vocabulary, a reading-based,incidental learning approach may be adequate, but or programs which aim atdeveloping learners production skills, rapid vocabulary expansion and somemeasure o infuence over what is learned, such an approach would appearinsucient. (p. 3)

This inadequacy is evident in empirical studies (Paribakht & Wesche, 1999;Zimmerman, 1997) showing that L2 vocabulary retention is higher orstudents who complete written vocabulary activities ater a reading taskthan or students who complete another reading assignment (with thesame target vocabulary) ater the reading task. The question that thenollows is, what is the most eective type o written exercise?

Fcos acing h efccy o Win excisso l2 Vocbuy rnion

Two overlapping, important actors in exercise design are attentionand noticing, both o which have been extensively debated in L2 acqui-sition studies (Schmidt, 1990; Truscott, 1998). The design o a certain

type o exercise might serve to make a particular L2 word more salientby drawing attention to the word, potentially resulting in the studentnoticing the word. For example, in the common vocabulary exercisesometimes called odd-man out, learners attention is drawn to individualvocabulary items as they determine the one word that does not belongin the group: steal,avalanche,thief,robbery. Likewise, completing a clozeexercise with target words or writing original sentences draws learnersattention to those words.

In a study o second-semester L2 Spanish learners, Jourdenais, Ota,Stauer, Boyson, & Doughty (1995) ound that a very simple textualmodication o learning material resulted in more noticing and use o thetarget language items. In this study, the researchers used an unenhancedand an enhanced version o a text. In the enhanced version, the targetitems (i.e., verb orms) were underlined and printed in a dierent ont.Some target items were also put in bold ont and others were shadowed.


4/21

276 TESOL QUARTERLY

The act that the target items looked dierent rom the rest o the textcaused them to be noticed. Because learners in this study tended tonotice and pay more attention to orms that merely looked dierent inthe text, it can be assumed that a vocabulary exercise that draws learnersattention to the target items would also have similar success.

A third actor assumed important in the ecacy o an exercise isdepth o processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Tulving, 1975).In this model, the durability o memory traces is a direct consequenceo encoding, with deeper and more elaborate encoding leading tomore durable memory traces: the deeper the processing, the better thelearning (Schouten-Van Parreren, 1995, p. 190). In theory, this modelavors exercises such as writing original sentences over matching or clozeexercises because writing original sentences supposedly requires a deeper

level o processing.Lauer and Hulstijn (2001), however, point out two problems with thismodel. First, it is impossible to operationalize depth of processing. Second, itis impossible to identiy one activity as deeperthan another. For example,one might assume that writing an original sentence with a word requiresdeeper processing than answering a multiple-choice question or matchinga word to its correct meaning. However, research has not validated thisassumption. Although there is general consensus that deeper processing

results in better learning, it remains unclear which actors specicallyinfuence depth and thereore cannot be operationalized. Furthermore,no research has produced results that allow one exercise type to be cat-egorized as requiring more depth o knowledge than another.

exan rsach on typs of Vocabulay exciss

In a study o Dutch EFL learners, Hulstijn (1998) explored the questiono whether writing 10 target words is more eective than just encounteringthem in a reading passage. In Condition 1, students read a letter to theeditor eaturing the target words. In Condition 2, students read the letterand then did a gap-lling exercise with the target words. In Condition3, students wrote a letter to the editor with the target words. Studentsshowed the highest retention in Condition 3, original letter writing. O a

maximum score o 10, Condition 1 had an average retention score o 4.3,Condition 2 had 5.9, and Condition 3 had 7.1. Students who did longeroriginal writing retained more vocabulary; their subsequent learning jobwill be easier because they will then ace less unknown material.

Hulstijn (1998) also reported results on a similar study in which stu-dents who read a weather report on a computer were able to look up themeaning o any unknown word and obtain an L1 translation. One grouponly read the passage; the other group read the passage and then had


5/21


to write their own weather report. Aterward, tests were created basedon which words the students had looked up. The mean or reading-onlywas 3.8 (o 10); or the reading plus writing, it was 4.6.

In a similarly designed study conducted with advanced EFL learners inboth the Netherlands and Israel, Lauer and Hulstijn (1998) ound thatusing the target words resulted in better incidental vocabulary acquisitionthan receiving comprehensible input containing the same target words.In Condition 1, students read a letter to the editor in which the 10 targetwords were printed in bold and glossed in L1 in the margin, and thenthey answered some comprehension questions. Students in Condition 2did the same task; however, instead o appearing in bold print, the 10target items were deleted rom the passage and students had to ll in theblanks. The 10 target items, along with ve words that did not appear in

the original text at all (i.e., they served as distractors), were printed withboth an L1 translation and an L2 explanation. In Condition 3, studentswere given a list o the 10 target words with their part o speech, L2 deni-tion, and an example sentence. Students then had to use the words in aletter to the editor regarding a controversial issue. On an unannouncedvocabulary test with a maximum score o 10, the average retention scoreswere 2.25 or Condition 1, 3.40 or Condition 2, and 5.90 or Condition3. Clearly, Condition 3 produced the best vocabulary retention.

Writing original language with the vocabulary likely produced bet-ter vocabulary results because students were pushed to produce outputinstead o just receiving input (Condition 1) or simply lling in blanks(Condition 2). Although having to produce more output with each wordmay have been a signicant actor in retaining the word, a more likelyexplanation or the superiority o Condition 3 is that in writing a letter(as opposed to working with separate, unconnected sentences), studentsoten choose a word, write a sentence, and then erase that sentence

because they want to use the word in another sentence. Constructingthe letter (or paragraph) thereore requires learners to interact with anysingle word multiple times, a actor that has been shown to play a keyrole in ultimate vocabulary retention (Atkins & Baddeley, 1998; Atkinson,1975; Baddeley, 1990; Bahrick, Bahrick, Bahrick, & Bahrick, 1993; Cobb,Spada, & Zahar, 2001).

In addition to type o task, another actor that could have infuenced

the results is time on task. The time on task in the three conditions was di-erent. Condition 1 took about 40 minutes, Condition 2 took 50 minutes,and Condition 3 took 70 minutes. There is almost a twoold dierencein time between Conditions 1 and 3. Thus, we are let with the questionwhether the exercise type or time on task was a more important actorin the resultant L2 vocabulary acquisition. The purpose o the currentstudy is to determine which o these two actors is more important in L2vocabulary retention.


6/21

278 TESOL QUARTERLY

Method

Paiipans

Individuals in this study were 154 ESL students attending intensive

programs at our U.S. universities. All o these programs are designedor international students who plan tertiary academic study in the UnitedStates, so the curricula and the student populations are very similar. Stu-dents profciency levels ranged rom lower intermediate (50) to upperintermediate (51) to advanced level (53). Fourteen dierent nativelanguages were represented, with the largest being Spanish (58), Arabic(22), Japanese (22), and Korean (11).

rsa dsign

The ocus o the study was to determine whether type o written exercisehad a signifcant eect on L2 vocabulary retention. Three types o writtenexercises were tested: one fll-in-the-blank sheet, three fll-in-the-blanksheets, and writing original sentences. In this within-subjects design, all154 participants practiced the same 15 target words. However, the words

were divided into three equivalent groups (A, B, C) o fve words each,and participants practiced each group o words under one o the threeexercise conditions. Thus, each participant practiced all three groups butwith a random assignment o practice condition to each group.

t Win exis cniins

This study examined the efcacy o three written exercise conditions. InCondition 1, students did one completion exercise or fve o the words,that is, one group. Students saw six words in a box at the top o the page,ollowed by fve unrelated sentences, each o which had a uniorm sizeblank indicating where one o the fve words should be flled in. (Thesixth word was provided as a distractor, or fller, to minimize reliance onguessing.) The instructions or this exercise read, Fill in the blanks with

one o these words. Each word should be used just one time.Condition 2 was the same as Condition 1, but the words in Condition2 were practiced in not one but three dierent exercises. Each o thethree exercises was similar to the exercise in Condition 1.

In Condition 3, students had to write an original sentence with thegiven word. The instructions or this exercise read, Write a sentencewith each o these words. The sentence should show the teacher that


7/21


you understand the meaning o the word. There was an example o acorrect sentence and an incorrect sentence as well.

Conditions 1 and 3 obviously take dierent amounts o time to com-plete because o what these practice tasks require o learners. (A pilot testthat I conducted shows that writing sentences takes approximately threetimes as long as fnishing a completion exercise or the same words.) Asa result o this pilot study, Condition 2 consisted o three cloze exercisesbecause it was believed that students would take the same amount o timeto do Condition 2 as they would or Condition 3. Though comparingConditions 1 and 3 would address the eectiveness o the two dierenttypes o exercises, a comparison o Conditions 2 and 3 would not onlyaddress the eectiveness o these completion versus sentence-writing tasksbut would also take into account the question o time on task, something

that previous studies had not addressed.

MaterialS

tg Wods

This study used these 18 words in a within-subjects design:

bolster pleadbruise plummetburst ponderfb squanderorge startleret swipelaunch thrive

linger toilloathe trigger

Fiteen o the words are actual target words. The three words beginningwith , fb,orge,ret, serve as distractors in the completion exercises toreduce guessing. That is to say, the words that begin with were nevercorrect answers in any o the three conditions and thereore should nothave drawn much attention or learning.

An overriding concern in selecting the target words or this study wasthat they be unknown to the participants. To this end, I perused two issuesoNewsweekto identiy potential target words that even very advanced ESLstudents might not know. When I saw that a large number o these wordswere verbs, I then eliminated all words that were not verbs. Most studiesdeal with 10 to 15 target words o various parts o speech. In this study,however, the part o speech was taken into account because the part o


8/21

280 TESOL QUARTERLY

speech o a word aects its diculty. Ludwig (1984) notes, Psychologicalresearch shows dierential perormance on tasks involving nouns, verbs,adjectives, and adverbs, indicating that the orm class o a word is areasonably potent variable in verbal tasks (p. 554). Although the exactranking o the parts o speech in terms o diculty is not clear, Lauer(1990) sums it up best: It is sometimes argued that certain grammaticalcategories are more dicult to learn than others. Nouns seem to be theeasiest; adverbsthe most dicult; verbs and adjectivessomewhere inbetween (p. 298).

Limiting the syntactical category reduces the role o this extraneousvariable and increases the chance that any true eect o type o exercisecan be observed. I then asked our ESL students (who spoke Spanish,Japanese, Arabic, and Korean) to identiy words rom the list that might

have cognates in their native languages.Finally, to ensure that the words were unlikely to be known by any o theactual participants, I conducted a pilot test with a group o very advancedESL students (n5 11) whose prociency level was much higher than thato any o the actual participants. Results o this pilot test revealed thatone word was known by one student, and another word was known bytwo students. Given this low level o knowledge, the words were deemedappropriate or this study.

The resultant list o verbs was alphabetized and divided into threegroups o similar diculty. To ensure this, the ollowing steps weretaken: (1) the requency count rom the Brown Corpus (Francis &Kucera, 1982) or each word was considered; (2) all words were thesame part o speech, that is, verbs; (3) all words were single words; nophrasal verbs such as call offor idioms such as wreak havocwere chosen;(4) words that had any kind o ax that might provide a morphologicalclue to the meaning o the word or serve as an anchor in remembering

the word were eliminated (e.g., retrieve, overcome); (5) as much as pos-sible, only words that I thought were worth learning were used so as toincrease the pedagogical value o the study or the participants becausethey were currently enrolled students; (6) the words were distributedin the three groups so that initial letters were equally represented (i.e.,all groups have exactly one word that begins with the letter b); (7) thenumber o syllables per word was matched between groups o words in

an attempt to control or word length; (8) as much as possible, wordswith a grammar were not included (e.g., the word cling is ollowed bythe word to, the word indulgeis oten ollowed by a refexive pronoun)because it was highly unlikely that students would pick up on this smallsyntactic marker in an incidental learning study when the presentationwas ocused on meaning; and (9) words that were deemed unique (e.g.,the wordplummethas the letters mmtogether, the word squanderbeginswith squ) and thereore more memorable or learnable were distributed


9/21


equally among the three groups. Based on these nine actors, the wordswere clustered into groups that were equivalent in difculty. Group Aincluded bolster,fb, launch,plead, squander, and toil. Group B includedbruise,orge,linger,plummet,startle, and thrive. Group C included burst,ret,loathe,ponder,swipe, and trigger.

Prs, Poss

A modifed version o the vocabulary knowledge scale (VKS; Paribakht& Wesche, 1997) was used or both the pretest and posttest. This modifedversion o the VKS (Table 1) includes three levels o word knowledge thatcould detect even partial gains in degrees o knowledge. Scoring on this

modifed VKS awarded one point i a correct meaning was demonstrated(as evidenced by an acceptable English synonym, English defnition,L1 translation, or L1 defnition) and one additional point i a correctexample sentence with the word was provided. Thus, each word couldreceive a score o 0, 1, or 2.

Minidicionry

Input or the meaning o the words was provided by a mini-dictionarythat was created especially or this study. The minidictionary was ourpages long and contained pertinent inormation regarding the meaningo each o the 18 words. These words were arranged alphabetically withample space between the entries to acilitate easy reading and use.

Each dictionary entry began with the word printed in bold ont. This wasollowed by part o speech (verb in all cases). The defnition is the result

table 1

Modifd Vocury Knowdg Sc

1. I dont know what this word means.

2. I know this word. It means _________________________.(provide an English synonym or a translation in your native language)

3. I can use this word in a good example sentence. Write your sentence here:

______________________________________________________________(I you do #3, you must do #2 also.)

Note. Adapted rom Paribakht &Wesche, 1997.


10/21

282 TESOL QUARTERLY

o consultations with both native speaker and ESL learners dictionaries.The defnition was written in simple language so that all participants inthis study, regardless o their profciency level, could comprehend it. Thedefnition was ollowed by two simple but illustrative sentences containingthe vocabulary word. In both sentences, the word was underlined. Hereis the entry or the word bolster:

olster (verb) To support; to make something eel strong again.

1. When Joe was in the hospital, I sent a nice card to bolsterhis spirits.

2. The players practiced very hard to bolstertheir chance o winning.

Practice booklets

A practice booklet consisted o six pages. The frst page oered gen-eral directions. Condition 1 was one page, Condition 2 was three pages,and Condition 3 was one page. To control or the eect o any interac-tion between the individual words and the type o practice, the exercisecondition was randomly assigned to the three groups o words. Therewere six possible combinations o condition (1, 2, 3) and word group(A, B, C) (e.g., 1A, 2B, 3C; 1A, 2C, 3B; 1B, 2A, 3C; 1B, 2C, 3A; 1C, 2A,

3B; 1C, 2B, 3A). To control or the recency effect (i.e., the frst and lastwords learned are more easily remembered), the sequence o the threegroups o words and the sequence o the exercise types were taken intoaccount. Thus, within any one o these six combinations, there are sixpossible orderings. For example, 1A, 2B, 3C can also be 1A, 3C, 2B; 2B,1A, 3C; 2B, 3C, 1A; 3C, 1A, 2B; or 3C, 2B, 1A. Based on these 36 com-binations o condition, word group, and ordering, 36 dierent practicebooks were created, and the 154 participants were randomly assignedone o the 36 booklets.

Creating the fll-in-the-blank sentences or the target words involvedseveral steps. First, sample sentences were checked in several English dic-tionaries. A pool o three sentences was written or each word. To avoidbias rom one person writing all the example and exercise sentences,original sentences were obtained rom 35 members o the materialswriters discussion list TESLMW-L. Finally, the examples were checked

to ensure that each o the examples was dierent rom the other two,especially in terms o collocations.

The challenge was to compose sentences that sounded native-like, wereat a very low level o ESL profciency, did not use any new or difcultvocabulary, and were dierent rom the two examples in the studentminidictionary. I the examples were too similar to the minidictionary,then students might end up learning a paired association rather thanthe actual meaning o the word.


11/21


For squander, the ollowing three sentences were created:

1. From 1994 to 1997, I was not serious about my studies. Now Im really sorrythat I ________________ those three years o my lie!

2. He _______________ most o his salary on beer and cigarettes. I dont think

this is a good thing to do.3. This is an important opportunity or you. I you _______________ thisopportunity, it will be a mistake or your uture.

The three collocations here are years (time), salary (money), andopportunity.

Procedure

On the frst day, participants were told that students at our schoolswere taking part in a research study comparing how dierent L1 groupslearn English. For the pretest, students completed the VKS or 24 words,which included the 18 target words as well as six easy words.

The next activity, a simple word association, was a fller activity to

decrease the chance that students would remember the words that theyhad just seen on the pretest. Students were given a blank sheet o paper.Students listened to a word and then wrote down their frst association.On the second day, students completed another word association activ-ity beore the actual treatment phase o the experiment began. For theactual treatment, students were randomly given a minidictionary and oneo the 36 versions o the practice booklets.

Because time on task was an issue in this study, students were also

asked to keep track o how much time they spent on each exercise. Inthe upper right-hand corner o each exercise sheet, a space was providedor students to write the time they started, the time they fnished, andhow many minutes they spent on the exercise. Students were given up to40 minutes to complete these exercises. Immediately ater the practicebooklets had been collected, students were given the unannounced post-test, which was exactly the same as the pretest.

Students were allowed thirty minutes to complete the posttest. When

time was called, students were instructed to turn their posttest bookletsover. They were told to write the answer to this question on the back othe last sheet:

Between the time we fnished yesterday and the start o today, did you do any-thing at all to fnd out the meanings o any o the words in this test booklet?For example, did you ask a riend? Consult a dictionary? Ask your teacher?I so, tell exactly what you did. Be sure to tell which words you got inorma-


12/21

284 TESOL QUARTERLY

tion about. I you did not do anything between yesterday and today to learnthe meanings o these words, then write I didnt do anything to learn thesewords on this sheet.

Scorng of the Pretests and Posttests

The pretest and the posttest were the same. The 18 target words alongwith six fller words made up the 24 words on the test. Since there wasno research interest in the six fller words, they were not scored in any

way.The modifed VKS used in this study awarded a score o 0, 1, or 2 or

each target word. The frst part o the VKS asked the learner to give anEnglish synonym or an L1 translation, which was worth one point. Thesecond part asked the student to write a good example sentence withthe word, which was worth an additional point. Participants understoodthat the only way to have their sentence considered or scoring was ithey frst wrote an English synonym or L1 translation.

The data were scored two times, once using a strict interpretation (S)o the criteria and again using a lenient interpretation (L) o the data.Because this was an incidental learning situation, any learning that might

show up was not expected to be very great or very deep. Since writing anappropriate sentence requires the use o a correct collocation with theverb, a rather fne point, there was some concern that using only S scor-ing would ail to capture smaller increments o learning that had takenplace. For example, i a student says only that toilmeans work(insteado the correct answer owork hardor work with great effort), it is obviousthat some learning has taken place. To award this response a 0 ignoresthe act that learning a word oten happens in increments; it is rarely an

all-or-nothing proposition. This simple defnition would receive a scoreo 0 in S scoring but a score o 1 in L scoring.

Student intervews

To ascertain whether any additional variables played a role in vocabu-lary acquisition, ollow-up interviews were conducted with eight students.These eight students were chosen based on their level o profciency, theirL1, and their scores in this study. O the eight students, three were inthe top third o posttest scores, three were in the middle third, and two

were in the lower third. Three were Arabic speakers, three were Spanishspeakers, one was Japanese, and one was Chinese.


13/21


reSultS

effc of excis typ

The data regarding the eect o exercise condition were analyzed using

a repeated measures analysis o variance (ANOVA). Each participant inthis within-subjects design reported three scores that were not totallyindependent o each other; repeated measures ANOVA reduces errorby taking this into account. The alpha level or all analyses was set at .05or tests o signifcance. Descriptive statistics or the lenient (L) scoringsystem, which had a 0 to 10 point scale (i.e., two points or each o thefve words), are presented in Table 2.

To test or a statistically signifcant dierence between these means, a

one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. The results are shownin Table 3. The main eect o exercise type was statistically signifcant,F(2, 306) 5 87.01,p, .0001. (Thep-value used throughout is the moreconservative Greenhouse-Geisser adjustment to correct or possible viola-tions o the sphericity assumption.)

Since the repeated measures ANOVA revealed a signifcant dierencebetween the means, with that o Condition 2 higher than that o Condition1 and that o Condition 3, an ANOVA o contrast variables was conducted.

As shown in Table 4, there was a signifcant dierence between Condi-tions 1 and 2 as well as between Conditions 2 and 3. However, there wasno signifcant dierence between Conditions 1 and 3.

The eect sizes o the pairwise comparisons were calculated usingCohens d(Cohen, 1992).Effect sizeis defned as the extent to which an

table 2

anysis of Vinc fo effc of excis typ on rnion (lnin Scoing)

Source d Type III SS Mean Square F Value

Condition 2 641.66 320.83 87.01

Error 306 1128.34 3.69

Note.p, .0001, based on Greenhouse-Geisser correction.

table 3dscipiv Sisics fo rnion (lnin Scoing) y excis typ

Condition n Mean Standard Deviation

1 (one completion) 154 2.18 2.36

2 (three completions) 154 4.78 2.78

3 (original sentences) 154 2.39 2.48


14/21

286 TESOL QUARTERLY

experimental manipulation (here, exercise type) has an eect o sepa-rating two groups. A standard guide or interpreting eect sizes is that

an eect size o .2 is considered small, an eect size o .5 is consideredmedium, and an eect size o .8 is considered large. As seen in Table 3,the eect sizes or both pairwise comparisons involving Condition 2 werevery large.

Data analysis using strict scoring produced very similar results. All resultsthat were statistically signifcant with lenient score were also statisticallysignifcant with strict scoring.

tim on tsk

Although it is true that participants learned more vocabulary doingthree fll-in-the-blank exercises than one sentence writing exercise, it isalso true that doing the three completion exercises took about 50% moretime. To control or time on task, a post hoc analysis was conducted on asubset o 31 students who had equivalent time on task (i.e., a dierence

o one minute or less) or Conditions 2 and 3. With the lenient scoringsystem, the mean score or Condition 2 was 5.45, while the mean scoreor Condition 3 was 2.65; the dierence was more than double. Themain eect o exercise type was statistically signifcant, F(2, 60) 5 16.59,p, .0001. Results using the strict scoring system were also statisticallysignifcant.

discussion

Many educators see fll-in-the-blank exercises as a superfcial or pas-sive use o the vocabulary, especially when compared to writing originalsentences. Hulstijn and Lauer (2001) would say that fll-in-the-blank exer-cises induce less involvement than writing original sentences as measured

table 4

anysis of Vinc fo effc of excis typ on rnion (lnin Scoing)

Contrast d Type III SS Mean Square F Value Eect Size

Conditions 1 and 2 1 1038.96 1038.96 142.05 1.01

Conditions 1 and 3 1 6.65 6.65 0.96 .09

Conditions 2 and 3 1 879.38 879.38 111.69 .91

Error 153 1204.62 7.87

Note.p, .0001.


15/21


by their involvement index, which rates activities as high(2), medium(1),or weak(0) on three essential components o learner involvement, namelyneed, search, and evaluation. With this index, fll-in-the-blank exercisesare rated as high need(2), medium search(1), and medium evaluation(1),or a score o 4, while sentence-writing exercises are high need(2), mediumsearch(1), and high evaluation(2), or a score o 5. Under this index, alearner-generated context garners a higher evaluation rating than teacher-or textbook-generated sentences in fll-in-the-blank exercises.

When a learner encounters a blank in a sentence in a vocabularyexercise, however, who can say that the learners process in trying out thevarious words in this slot, perhaps by translating many o the words orperhaps by remembering tidbits about some o the words (e.g., Forgeissomething bad, so it cant ft in this sentence because this sentence is about

something good), is not indeed deep processing o or high involvementwith the word? A fll-in-the-blank exercise is not only deep (processing)but also highly efcient in terms o student and teacher time required.(See Hulstijn, 2001, and Hulstijn & Lauer, 2001, or a cogent discussiono the difculty in operationalizing depth of processing, much less decidingwhether a particular type o practice is deeperthan another.)

Educators have commonly assumed that students retain new vocabularybetter by writing original sentences than by doing a superfcial completion

exercise. In this study, however, the dierence between the mean reten-tion score or writing sentences (2.39) and that o doing one completionexercise (2.18) was not statistically signifcant (see Table 2). Thereore,we cannot say that one o these exercises is better than the other or L2vocabulary learning.

A more important actor in the efcacy o an exercise type than deptho processing is multiple retrievals o the target word. In this study, themean score or students who did three completion exercises (4.78) was

double that or students who wrote original sentences (2.39) and morethan double that or those who did one completion exercise (2.18). Thedierence in these means was signifcant at the .0001 level (see Table 3).Furthermore, the eect size between the means or comparisons involvingpractice Condition 2, three completion exercises, was very large.

The results o this study show the value o a vocabulary exercise thatrequires multiple encounters with or retrievals o the target words. These

results are in line with the psycholinguistic and educational psychologyresearch on rehearsal (Baddeley, 1990) and distributed practice(Atkins &Baddeley, 1998). The current study indicates that doing multiple targetword retrievals in an exercise, no matter how superfcial the exercise mayseem, is a stronger and more acilitative actor in L2 vocabulary learningthan the purported deeper processing or involvement load that writingoriginal sentences with new L2 vocabulary may oer.


16/21

288 TESOL QUARTERLY

classroom implatons

When the goal is vocabulary learning and time is an important actor,assigning ESL students the task o writing original sentences is not asefcient or pedagogically sound an activity as completing multiple fll-in-the-blank tasks. Writing original sentences involves a tremendous amounto student time in looking up the meaning o the word in a dictionary,deciding i the meaning makes sense, deciding i the word can be usedin a particular way in English, coming up with a good sentence with anappropriate collocation, and then deciding i the syntax o the createdsentence is correct. In addition to this student time, teacher time requiredin marking these sentences is overwhelming. The teachers dubious chal-lenge is how to mark this paper so that the student can beneft rom the

eedback and learn the word. Unortunately, student original sentenceswith new vocabulary oten resemble a word heap in which sentences havemissing words, misplaced words, or incorrect (though seemingly logical)collocations. These problems, especially those involving collocation andusage, are extremely difcult to correct or reormulate in such a waythat the students original meaning and tone are maintained. Through-out this correction process, teachers must balance how much time theycan realistically devote to this task. Any beneft or the student not only

presupposes that the teacher will give appropriate, comprehensible, anduseul eedback, but also that the student will actually read, understand,and use this eedback. Writing original sentences with vocabulary wordsis time-consuming or the student and the teacher.

I this invested time actually produced solid retention results, thestudents and the teachers time and eort might be worth it. However,the results o this study show that writing original sentences is neither aneective nor efcient written exercise or students to do when the goalis L2 vocabulary growth and retention.

In contrast to the time required or a sentence-writing exercise, teach-ers can develop a basic completion exercise relatively quickly and easily.The teacher creates a sentence or each target word, deletes the target

word answer rom the sentence and substitutes a blank or the word, andthen lists the answers (plus a distractor or two) at the top o the page.Teacher preparation time is minimal, student time is less than with writ-

ing sentences, and teacher correction can be done quickly. Perhaps moreimportantly, students will always end up with a correct English examplesentence to study.

The current study looked at the eectiveness o sentence writing orL2 vocabulary learning, and these results do not support sentence-writingexercises or L2 lexical growth when time on task is controlled. However,this is not to say that writing sentences is not eective or language goals


17/21


such as writing improvement, syntax development, spelling, or overallfuency.

This study provides empirical support or L2 vocabulary CALL (com-puter-assisted language learning) sotware programs, many o which aredesigned in a manner that requires multiple practice exposures to targetitems. A common criticism o CALL sotware programs has been thatthey do not make use o so-called deeper processing activities with L2

vocabulary, such as writing original sentences or creating personalizedexamples with the target items. This lack o deep processing was seen asa natural limitation o the computer, which cannot accurately interpretoriginal, individually written input at the sentence level and providemeaningul eedback. In addition, some educators were concerned thatasking students to do supercial types o exercises such as lling in the

blanks (or multiple choice, true-alse, or matching) would limit theirlevel o knowledge about a word and students would not be able to actu-ally use the word. However, the test in this study required both passiveknowledge (i.e., L1 translation or L2 synonym) and active usage (i.e., anoriginal student-generated sentence) o a word.

Results rom the current study show that writing original sentences,one o the supposedly deeper processing activities that the computercould not acilitate, was only about hal as eective as doing three writ-

ten practice encounters with target items. Multiple encounters usingll-in-the-blank activities is a task that not only can be done extremelyeciently by the computer but also produces superior retention results.Thereore, it behooves L2 vocabulary sotware designers to ensure thatmultiple encounters with the target items is an integral part o their learn-ing sotware; likewise, educators should look or this eature in sotwarethat they might purchase or their learners.

diections fo Futue reseach

This study ound that multiple sentence-completion exercises producebetter vocabulary retention than writing original sentences when timeon task is controlled. In this study, only verbs were used. Future studiescould investigate whether this acilitative eect holds or other parts o

speech, especially adjectives and nouns, and or multiword units suchas phrasal verbs (run out of, take after) and idioms (a piece of cake, bite offmore than you can chew).

Future studies could use more measures to see the treatments di-erent eects. The current study used the VKS to measure breadth anddepth o word knowledge, and this knowledge was measured only onceimmediately ater the treatment. Future research could use multiple


18/21

290 TESOL QUARTERLY

instruments to ascertain vocabulary learning over time (e.g., short-termvs. long-term retention), as done by Waring and Takaki (2003).

Finally, many dierent kinds o written exercises exist, includingcompletion, matching, true-alse, odd-man out, error identication, shortanswer, sequencing, writing original sentences or examples, and multiplechoice. The current study examined only two o these, namely, comple-tion (ll in the blank) and writing original sentences. These two exercisetypes were chosen because they are two very commonly used exercises inL2 classrooms. Future research should look at dierent combinations oexercise types. Only in this way can there be empirical support or anysort o hierarchy o exercise types.

the author

Keith Folse is an associate proessor o TESOL at the University o Central Florida.His publications include Vocabulary Myths(2004), The Art of Teaching Speaking(2006),and Greater Essays(2006).

reFerenceS

Atkins, P., & Baddeley, A. (1998). Working memory and distributed vocabulary learn-

ing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(4), 537552.Atkinson, R. (1975). Mnemonics in second-language acquisition. American Psycholo-gist, 30, 821828.

Baddeley, A. (1990). Human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Bahrick, H., Bahrick, L., Bahrick, A., & Bahrick P. (1993). Maintenance o oreign

language vocabulary and the spacing eect. Psychological Science, 4, 316321.Brown, T., & Perry, F. (1991). A comparison o three learning strategies or ESL

vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655670.Byrd, P., Reid, J., & Schuemann, C. (Eds.). (in press). English for academic success:

Vocabulary. Boston: Houghton Mifin.Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996). Eects o multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisi-tion. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 183199.

Cobb, T., Spada, N., & Zahar, R. (2001) Acquiring vocabulary through reading:Eects o requency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern LanguageReview,57(4), 31.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155159.Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213238.Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels o processing: A ramework or memory

research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671684.Craik, F., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth o processing and the retention o words in

episodic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 268294.Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition rom listening to stories. Reading Research

Quarterly, 24(2), 174187.Ellis, R. (1994). Factors in the incidental acquisition o second language vocabulary

rom oral input: A review essay. Applied Language Learning, 5(1), 132.Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary myths.Ann Arbor: University o Michigan Press.Francis, N., & Kucera, H. (1982.)Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston: Houghton

Mifin.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-7164()19:4L.537[aid=7427951]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-7164()19:4L.537[aid=7427951]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0003-066x()30L.821[aid=1192905]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0003-066x()30L.821[aid=1192905]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0003-066x()30L.821[aid=1192905]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0956-7976()4L.316[aid=7427947]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0956-7976()4L.316[aid=7427947]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.183[aid=2863827]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.183[aid=2863827]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0033-2909()112L.155[aid=21915]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0033-2909()112L.155[aid=21915]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()34L.213[aid=4832666]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()34L.213[aid=4832666]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0034-0553()24:2L.174[aid=6088828]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0034-0553()24:2L.174[aid=6088828]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0034-0553()24:2L.174[aid=6088828]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1041-679X()5:1L.1[aid=7427948]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1041-679X()5:1L.1[aid=7427948]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1041-679X()5:1L.1[aid=7427948]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0003-066x()30L.821[aid=1192905]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0003-066x()30L.821[aid=1192905]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.183[aid=2863827]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0033-2909()112L.155[aid=21915]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0956-7976()4L.316[aid=7427947]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()34L.213[aid=4832666]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-7164()19:4L.537[aid=7427951]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0034-0553()24:2L.174[aid=6088828]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0034-0553()24:2L.174[aid=6088828]


19/21


Green, D., & Meara, P. (1995). Guest editorial. Computer-Assisted Language Learning8(23), 97101.

Haynes, M., & Baker, I. (1993). American and Chinese readers learning rom lexicalamiliarization in English texts. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), SecondLanguage Reading and Vocabulary Acquisition(pp. 130152). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hincks, R. (2003). Pronouncing the academic word list: Features o L2 student oralpresentations. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetics Sciences(pp.

15451548). Barcelona: Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona. Retrieved March 29,2006, rom http://www.speech.kth.se/ctt/publications/papers03/icphs03_1545.pd

Hinkel, E. (2001). Giving personal examples and telling stories in academic essays.Issues in Applied Linguistics, 12, 149170.

Huckin, T., & Bloch, J. (1993). Strategies or inerring word meaning in context:A cognitive model. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second languagereading and vocabulary acquisition, 153178. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hulstijn, J. (1998, March). There is no learning without attention. Paper presented at

the annual meeting o the American Association o Applied Linguistics, Seattle,WA.

Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning:A reappraisal o elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.),Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258286). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learningby advanced oreign language students: The infuence o marginal glosses, dic-tionary use, and reoccurrence o unknown words. The Modern Language Journal,

80, 327339.Hulstijn, J., & Lauer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence or the involvement loadhypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539558.

James, M. (1996). Improving second language reading comprehension: A computer-assistedvocabulary development approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University oHawaii, Manoa.

Joe, A. (1998). What eect do text-based tasks promoting generation have on inci-dental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357377.

Jones, F. (1995). Learning an alien lexicon: A teach-yoursel case. Second LanguageResearch, 11(2), 95111.

Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textualenhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt(Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning(pp. 163). Manoa: Uni-

versity o Hawaii Press.Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The eects on comprehension and

vocabulary acquisition or students o dierent verbal abilities. The Modern Lan-guage Journal, 78, 285299.

Kojic-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Students approaches to vocabulary learningand their relationship to success. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 176192.

Lauer, B. (1990). Why are some words more dicult than others? Some intralexicalactors that aect the learning o words. International Review of Applied Linguisticsin Language Teaching, 28(4), 293307.

Lauer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you dontknow, words you think you know, and words you cant guess. In J. Coady &T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 2034). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Lauer, B. (1998). The development o passive and active vocabulary in a secondlanguage: Same or dierent? Applied Linguistics, 19, 255271.
http://www.speech.kth.se/ctt/publications/papers03/icphs03_1545.pdfhttp://www.speech.kth.se/ctt/publications/papers03/icphs03_1545.pdfhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.327[aid=2863836]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.327[aid=2863836]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.327[aid=2863836]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0023-8333()51L.539[aid=2863837]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0023-8333()51L.539[aid=2863837]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()19L.357[aid=2863823]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()19L.357[aid=2863823]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()11:2L.95[aid=7427954]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()11:2L.95[aid=7427954]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()11:2L.95[aid=7427954]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()78L.285[aid=231819]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()78L.285[aid=231819]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()78L.285[aid=231819]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()83L.176[aid=5265214]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()83L.176[aid=5265214]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0019-042X()28:4L.293[aid=7427953]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0019-042X()28:4L.293[aid=7427953]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0019-042X()28:4L.293[aid=7427953]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()19L.255[aid=2334133]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()19L.255[aid=2334133]http://www.speech.kth.se/ctt/publications/papers03/icphs03_1545.pdfhttp://www.speech.kth.se/ctt/publications/papers03/icphs03_1545.pdfhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.327[aid=2863836]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.327[aid=2863836]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0023-8333()51L.539[aid=2863837]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()19L.357[aid=2863823]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()78L.285[aid=231819]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()78L.285[aid=231819]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()11:2L.95[aid=7427954]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()11:2L.95[aid=7427954]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0019-042X()28:4L.293[aid=7427953]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0019-042X()28:4L.293[aid=7427953]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()19L.255[aid=2334133]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()83L.176[aid=5265214]


20/21

292 TESOL QUARTERLY

Lauer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (1998, March). What leads to better incidental vocabulary learning:Comprehensible input or comprehensible output?Paper presented at the Pacifc SecondLanguage Research Forum, Tokyo.

Lauer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language:The construct o task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 126.

Lauer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 writ-ten production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307322.

Lauer, B., & Paribakht, S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabu-laries: Eects o language learning context. Language Learning, 48, 365391.

Lauer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anythingto do with it? RELC Journal, 28(1), 89108.

Lee, S. (2003). ESL learners vocabulary use in writing and the eects o explicitvocabulary instruction. System, 31, 537561.

Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1994). Students perceptions o EAP writing instructions andwriting needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 81101.

Lessard-Clouston, M. (1994). Challenging student approaches to ESL vocabulary

development. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 12, 6980.Liu, D. (2003). The most requently used spoken American English idioms: A corpus

analysis and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 671700.Ludwig, J. (1984). Vocabulary acquisition as a unction o word characteristics. The

Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Languages Vivantes, 40,552562.

McCarthy, M., ODell, F., & Shaw, E. (1997). Vocabulary in use. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning rom context: Strategies, knowledge

sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inerencing. TESOLQuarterly, 37, 645670.Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge

University Press.Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for

meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.),Second language vocabulary acquisition(pp. 174200). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and incidental L2 vocabulary acquisi-

tion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 195224.Parry, K. (1993). Too many words: Learning the vocabulary o an academic subject.

In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabularylearning(pp. 4664). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Prince, P. (1995). Second language vocabulary learning: The role o context ver-sus translations as a unction o profciency. The Modern Language Journal, 80,478493.

Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learners approaches to learning vocabulary in secondlanguages. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 1528.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role o consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11, 129158.Schmitt, N. (1998). Measuring collocational knowledge: Key issues and an experi-

mental assessment procedure. ITLInternational Journal of Applied Linguistics,119120, 2747.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Identiying and assessing vocabulary learningstrategies. Thai TESOL Bulletin, 5(4), 2733.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()22L.1[aid=2863824]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()22L.1[aid=2863824]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()16L.307[aid=1856536]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()16L.307[aid=1856536]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0023-8333()48L.365[aid=2747041]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0023-8333()48L.365[aid=2747041]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0826-435X()12L.69[aid=7427959]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0826-435X()12L.69[aid=7427959]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()37L.671[aid=7427958]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()37L.671[aid=7427958]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()37L.645[aid=7427956]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()37L.645[aid=7427956]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()37L.645[aid=7427956]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0272-2631()21L.195[aid=2863839]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0272-2631()21L.195[aid=2863839]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.478[aid=231830]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.478[aid=231830]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.478[aid=231830]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()79L.15[aid=231832]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()79L.15[aid=231832]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()11L.129[aid=230804]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()11L.129[aid=230804]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()11L.129[aid=230804]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()22L.1[aid=2863824]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()16L.307[aid=1856536]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0023-8333()48L.365[aid=2747041]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0826-435X()12L.69[aid=7427959]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.478[aid=231830]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()80L.478[aid=231830]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()11L.129[aid=230804]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0142-6001()11L.129[aid=230804]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0026-7902()79L.15[aid=231832]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0272-2631()21L.195[aid=2863839]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()37L.645[aid=7427956]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()37L.645[aid=7427956]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()37L.671[aid=7427958]


21/21

Schouten-Van Parreren, C. (1995). Action psychology as applied to foreign languagevocabulary acquisition. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 8, 181204.

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review.SecondLanguage Research, 14, 103135.

Walters, J., & Wolf, Y. (1996). Language awareness in non-native writers: Metalinguisticjudgments of need for revision. Language Awareness, 5, 325.

Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabu-

lary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 130163.Zimmerman, C. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a

difference? An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 121140.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()14L.103[aid=5149367]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()14L.103[aid=5149367]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()14L.103[aid=5149367]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()31L.121[aid=2863846]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()31L.121[aid=2863846]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()14L.103[aid=5149367]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0267-6583()14L.103[aid=5149367]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0039-8322()31L.121[aid=2863846]

Documents

writing_voca1.pdf