Presentation on theme: "Jane Doe and John Smith RQ: To what extent does writing new words help high school ELLs learn vocabulary? Barcroft, J. (2004). Effects of sentence writing."— Presentation transcript:
Jane Doe and John Smith RQ: To what extent does writing new words help high school ELLs learn vocabulary? Barcroft, J. (2004). Effects of sentence writing in second language lexical acquisition. Second Language Research, 20(4), 303-334. This is YOUR RQ.
What is the Issue? The effects on learning new second language (L2) words when comparing writing words in a sentence vs. repetition of words in a word-picture task. Beginning of Introduction and literature review
Potential factors affecting L2 lexical acquisition Semantic Elaboration: Focus on semantic (referential, meaning- related) properties of an item in the input Output = production: Writing ‘known’ or ‘new’ words in original sentences
Semantic Elaboration (SE) Positively affects memory for L1 ‘known’ words (e.g. Tressalt & Mayzner 1960; Levin et al. 1982) Memory for known or new words depends on type of assessment (Pressley et al. 1982) –Reliance on form vs. meaning
Theories of Human Memory for Processing Input Levels of processing (LOP): Depends on ‘depth’ of cognitive processing (Craik & Lockhart 1972) –More vs. less elaborate manipulation Transfer appropriate processing (TAP): –Memory performance depends on processing: same on test as during learning? (Morris et al. 1977)
Theories of Human Memory for Processing Input Type of processing-resource allocation (TOPRA): For high processing demands, semantic elaboration: –increases learning semantic properties of words –but decreases learning strucural properties –because processing resources are limited (Barcroft, 2000, 2002; McDaniel & Kearney, 1984)
Semantic Elaboration Research in L2 Word Learning No positive effects on structural memory for new words = TOPRA (Brown & Perry, 1991; Prince, 1996) Positive effects on ‘pseudoword’ learning (Coomber et al., 1986) –But tasks may not have involved the expected amount of semantic elaboration
Mixed Effects of Output on L2 Word Learning No effects of translating new L2 words into L1 (Watanabe, 1997) Negative effects of copying L2 words (=structural) (Barcroft, 1999) Positive effects of ‘modified output’ (Ellis & He 1999) Effect depends on type of learning task and test
The Present Study: Research Questions 1.Does writing new words in sentences affect L2 lexical acquisition (L2la)? 2.If ‘yes,’ does sentence writing decrease L2la? (b/c requires semantic processing) 3.If ‘yes,’ are effects (decrease in L2la) short and long term? The paper’s RQs
Experiment 1 Participants L2 Spanish, L1 English 2 nd semester college students (n=44) Materials 24 concrete, unfamiliar words, no cognates with English Exposure time and repetitions No sentence writing: 24 sec.; 4 exposures per word Sentence writing: 48 sec.; 1 exposure per word (See experiment 2!) Beginning of method
Experiment 1 Design and procedure 1.Pre-test: 24 new L2 words 2.Treatment (everyone did both conditions): –Condition 1: Write words in original sentences (= semantic elaboration) –Condition 2: View word-picture repetitions (4 times) (=structural memory) 3.Post-tests: 1.After treatment 2.Two days later 3.One week later
Scoring and Analysis Dependent variables: number of syllables correctly produced number of words correctly produced Analysis Repeated-measures ANOVA
Experiment 1: Results Syllables: Significant effects for time and condition, no interactions. Similar effect for # of words. Beginning of results
Discussion Sentence writing has a negative, lasting effect on L2 word learning Supports TAP: Learning through sentence writing does not transfer to productive L2 vocabulary test Supports TOPRA: High processing demands of sentence writing decreases memory for structure of new words
Experiment 2 Participants L2 Spanish, L1 English 2 nd semester college students (n=10) Materials 24 concrete, unfamiliar words, no cognates with English Exposure time and repetitions No sentence writing: 24 sec.; only 1 exposure per word Sentence writing: 48 sec.; 1 exposure per word Design and procedure Similar to Experiment 1 No third posttest
Experiment 2: Results Syllables: Significant effects for condition, not time; no interactions. No significant effects for # of words.
Discussion Confirmation of results from Experiment 1 Findings from Experiment 1 not due to differences in time of exposure or number of repetitions
Conclusions and Implications Conclusions and Implications Sentence writing = semantic elaboration and output Sentence writing can inhibit learning of structural properties of new words (not known words) Overload of processing resources required in sentence writing divide attention for new word learning Future research: Study independent effects of semantic elaboration vs. output; test learners of different proficiency levels, L1s and L2s, on different tasks Overall discussion/ conclusions
Discussion Question Discussion Question Do you think that these findings have any pedagogical implications for TESOL? If so, what are they? If not, why? YOUR question to start class discussion
References Barcroft, J. (1999). Processing resources and L2 lexical acquisition in three writing tasks. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Minneapolis, MN. Barcroft, J. (2000). The effects of sentence writing as semantic elaboration on the allocation of processing resources and second language lexical acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52, 2. [note: page number are missing in reference list] Brown. T. & Perry, Jr. F. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655-670. Coomber, J. E., Ramstad, D. A. & Sheets, D. R. (1986). Elaboration in vocabulary learning: A comparison of three rehearsal methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 289-93. Craik, R. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-84. Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The role of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301. Levin, J. R., McCorminck, C.Bl, Miller, G. E, Berry, J. K. & Pressley, M. (1982). Mnemonic vs. nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies for children. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 121-136. McDaniel, M. A. & Kearney, E. M. (1984). Optimal learning strategies and their spontaneous use: The importance of task-appropriate processing. Memory and Cognition, 12, 361- 373. Morris, C.D, Bransford, J.D. & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing vs. transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-33. References (all and only those in ppt)
References Pressley, M., Levin, J. R. & Miller, G. E. (1982). The keyword method compared to alternative vocabulary-learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 50-60. Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context vs. translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 478-93. Tressalt, M. E. & Mayzner, M. S. (1960). A study of incidental learning. Journal of Psychology, 50, 339-47. Wattanabe, Y. 1997. Input, intake and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 287-307.