Differences between written and spoken input in learning new words

Abstract

We trained adult learners the meanings of rare words to test hypotheses about modality effects in learning word forms. These hypotheses are that (1) written (orthographic) training leads to a better representation of word form than phonological training, that (2) recognition memory for a word is partly dependent upon congruence between training and testing modality (written vs. spoken) but that (3) skilled learners are less dependent on the episodic context of training than are less skilled readers. These hypotheses were confirmed by results of a word recognition test following form-meaning training. We discuss these results in terms of an episodic account of word learning (Reichle & Perfetti, 2003) and variations in lexical quality (Perfetti & Hart, 2001) that can arise through differences in code generation during learning. Differences between print and speech in learning new wordsLearning new word forms and word meanings arises from a variety of experiences with words. Much word learning involves mapping new word forms onto existing spoken word representations; other learning involves "translating" a second language form to a first language form; still other word learning is more or less de-novo, when a previously unfamiliar word is encountered for the first time in a context that provides a meaning. In this case, the learner establishes a new word representation of variable specification of form and meaning, and one of the factors that may influence this variability is the episodic context of the word encounter, including whether it is read or spoken. This is the problem we address here: How are word forms learned from experiences with unfamiliar words, and how this is affected by the modality (written or spoken) of the word learning event?

Vocabulary acquisition in aphasia: Modality can matter

“…TS’s more successful learning following only orthographic vs. only phonological input is in line with findings from healthy adults (Dean, Yekovich, & Gray, 1988; Gallo, McDermott, Percer, & Roediger, 2001; Nelson, Balass, & Perfetti, 2005). Nelson et al (2005) suggest that this effect arises from dual coding of orthographic input, leading to stronger memory for these words through more extensive activation of the language network and more numerous episodic traces.…”

“…Nelson et al (2005) suggest that this effect arises from dual coding of orthographic input, leading to stronger memory for these words through more extensive activation of the language network and more numerous episodic traces. A written input would thus be simultaneously processed through both orthographic and phonological routes, while phonological input would not be automatically converted into orthography.…”

Cognitive processes in children's multimedia text learning

“…This theory may explain the occurrence of the present results for the quality of learning and not the quantity of learning. The fact that the consolidation effect was found for only the written conditions can be explained by the more active gathering of information and deeper learning prompted by the reading of information and more passive consumption of information and superficial understanding often allowed by listening (Nelson et al, 2005).…”

“…According to Mayer and Chandler (2001) who found more positive effects of reading than listening on the answering of transfer questions in a user-paced condition, the extra time available to study the material may actually be the factor of importance and not user control. Reading a text at one's own pace may also entail more active information gathering and therefore elicit deeper learning (Nelson et al, 2005). Further research on the issue of long-term learning effects in self-paced multimedia learning environments is therefore clearly needed.…”

Orthographic bias in L3 lexical knowledge

“…This may lead to written forms being more familiar than spoken ones, making it easier to access meanings via orthography than via phonology. This asymmetry may be further accentuated in that orthographic forms at least in L1, have been shown to be learned more quickly and to be connected with more robust lexical representations than phonological froms (Nelson, Balass & Perfetti 2005, see also Baddeley, Papagno & Vallar 1988 for visual input advantage). Given these possibilities of orthographic bias in FL vocabulary learning, we predicted that L3 learners would find it easier to access word meanings via orthographic than via phonological realizations.…”