This meta‐analysis aimed to clarify the complex relationship between repetition and second language (L2) incidental vocabulary learning by meta‐analyzing primary studies reporting correlation ...coefficients between the number of encounters and vocabulary learning. We synthesized and quantitatively analyzed 45 effect sizes from 26 studies (N = 1,918) to calculate the mean effect size of the frequency–learning relationship and to explore the extent to which 10 empirically motivated variables moderate this relationship. Results showed that there was a medium effect (r = .34) of repetition on incidental vocabulary learning. Subsequent moderator analyses revealed that variability in the size of repetition effects across studies was explained by learner variables (age, vocabulary knowledge), treatment variables (spaced learning, visual support, engagement, range in number of encounters), and methodological differences (nonword use, forewarning of an upcoming comprehension test, vocabulary test format). Based on the findings, we suggest future directions for L2 incidental vocabulary learning research.
Open Practices
This article has been awarded an Open Data badge. All data are publicly accessible via the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/rmnk2. Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.
The involvement load hypothesis (ILH) was designed to predict the effectiveness of instructional tasks for incidental L2 vocabulary learning. In this meta‐analysis we examined 398 effect sizes from ...42 empirical studies (N = 4,628) to explore (a) the overall predictive ability of the ILH, (b) the relative effects of different components of the ILH (need, search, and evaluation), and (c) the influence of potential factors moderating learning (e.g., time on task, frequency of encounters or use, and test format). Results showed that the ILH was significantly predictive of learning and explained 15.0% and 5.1% of the variance in effect sizes on immediate and delayed posttests, respectively. We found that the evaluation component contributed to the greatest amount of learning, followed by need, whereas search did not contribute to learning. Moderator analyses revealed that (a) test format and frequency moderated learning gains and (b) involvement load had a greater impact on learning than time on task.
Research has shown that learning a known-and-unknown word combination leads to greater learning than learning an unknown word alone (Kasahara, 2010, 2011). These studies found that attaching a known ...adjective to an unknown noun can help learners remember the unknown noun. Kasahara (2015) found that a known verb can serve as an effective cue to remember an unknown noun in a known-and-unknown combination. To examine useful cues to learn unknown verbs, this study compared verb (unknown) + noun (known) combinations to verb (unknown) + adverb (known) combinations. Additionally, we explored how learners’ vocabulary size would affect the known-and-unknown two-word combination learning to deepen our understanding of the characteristics of students who benefit from combination learning. The participants in each group learned 18 two-word combinations consisting of the same unknown target verbs and different known cues (nouns or adverbs). The participants were provided with a five-minute learning phase and two immediate recall tests: a Single Word Test, to write down the L1 meanings of the targets, and a Combination Test, to write down the L1 meanings of the combinations. The same two tests were administered one week later. The results showed that known nouns were better cues for learning unknown verbs than known adverbs. It was also found that participants with a larger vocabulary size benefited more from two-word combination learning.
The present meta-analysis aimed to improve on Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) by incorporating it into a broader framework that predicts incidental vocabulary learning. Studies testing the ILH were ...systematically collected and 42 studies meeting our inclusion criteria were analyzed. The model-selection approach was used to determine the optimal statistical model (i.e., a set of predictor variables) that best predicts learning gains. Following previous findings, we investigated whether the prediction of the ILH improved by (a) examining the influence of each level of individual ILH components (need, search, and evaluation), (b) adopting optimal operationalization of the ILH components and test format grouping, and (c) including other empirically motivated variables. Results showed that the resulting models explained a greater variance in learning gains. Based on the models, we created incidental vocabulary learning formulas. Using these formulas, one can calculate the effectiveness index of activities to predict their relative effectiveness more accurately on incidental vocabulary learning.
INVOLVEMENT LOAD HYPOTHESIS PLUS Yanagisawa, Akifumi; Webb, Stuart
Studies in second language acquisition,
12/2022, Letnik:
44, Številka:
5
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The present meta-analysis aimed to improve on Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) by incorporating it into a broader framework that predicts incidental vocabulary learning. Studies testing the ILH were ...systematically collected and 42 studies meeting our inclusion criteria were analyzed. The model-selection approach was used to determine the optimal statistical model (i.e., a set of predictor variables) that best predicts learning gains. Following previous findings, we investigated whether the prediction of the ILH improved by (a) examining the influence of each level of individual ILH components (need, search, and evaluation), (b) adopting optimal operationalization of the ILH components and test format grouping, and (c) including other empirically motivated variables. Results showed that the resulting models explained a greater variance in learning gains. Based on the models, we created incidental vocabulary learning formulas. Using these formulas, one can calculate the effectiveness index of activities to predict their relative effectiveness more accurately on incidental vocabulary learning.
This meta-analysis investigated the overall effects of glossing on L2 vocabulary learning from reading and the influence of potential moderator variables: gloss format (type, language, mode) and text ...and learner characteristics. A total of 359 effect sizes from 42 studies (N = 3802) meeting the inclusion criteria were meta-analyzed. The results indicated that glossed reading led to significantly greater learning of words (45.3% and 33.4% on immediate and delayed posttests, respectively) than nonglossed reading (26.6% and 19.8%). Multiple-choice glosses were the most effective, and in-text glosses and glossaries were the least effective gloss types. L1 glosses yielded greater learning than L2 glosses. We found no interaction between language (L1, L2) and proficiency (beginner, intermediate, advanced), and no significant difference among modes of glossing (textual, pictorial, auditory). Learning gains were moderated by test formats (recall, recognition, other), comprehension of text, and proficiency.
The present meta‐analysis aimed to summarize the extent to which second language vocabulary is learned from the most frequently researched word‐focused activities: flashcards, word lists, writing, ...and fill‐in‐the‐blanks. One hundred effect sizes from 22 studies were included in meta‐regression analyses and administered separately for the observations measured with meaning‐recall and form‐recall tests. The results revealed that the average percentage learning gains were 60.1% and 58.5% on meaning‐recall and form‐recall immediate posttests. These gains dropped to 39.4% and 25.1% on delayed meaning‐ and form‐recall tests, respectively. These results suggest that learning through word‐focused tasks is far from guaranteed. Moreover, the percentage learning gains among the different activities ranged from 18.4% to 77.0% on immediate posttests and from 23.9% to 73.4% on delayed posttests indicating that there is much variation in efficacy among the activities. Moderator analyses revealed that learners’ place of study and direction of learning affected learning.
There is a great deal of variation in gains found between studies of second language (L2) incidental vocabulary learning, as well as many factors that affect learning. This meta-analysis investigated ...the effects of exposure to L2 meaning-focused input on incidental vocabulary learning with an aim to clarify the proportional gains that occur through meaning-focused learning. Twenty-four primary studies were retrieved providing 29 different effect sizes and a total sample size of 2,771 participants (1,517 in experimental groups vs. 1,254 in control groups). Results showed large overall effects for incidental vocabulary learning on first and follow-up posttests. Mean proportions of target words learned ranged from 9–18% on immediate posttests, and 6–17% on delayed posttests. Incidental L2 vocabulary learning gains were similar across reading (17%, 15%), listening (15%, 13%), and reading while listening (13%, 17%) conditions on immediate and delayed posttest. In contrast, the proportion of words learned in viewing conditions on immediate posttests was smaller (7%, 5%). Findings also revealed that the amount of incidental learning varies according to a range of moderator variables including learner characteristics (L2 proficiency, institutional levels), materials (text type and audience), learning activities (spacing, mode of input), and methodological features (approaches to controlling prior word knowledge).
PDF
