Factors Affecting the Learning of Foreign Language Vocabulary: Imagery Keyword Mediators and Phonological Short-Term Memory

Abstract

In order to investigate the cognitive processes involved in learning Foreign Language (FL) vocabulary, this study evaluates different methods of instruction. It demonstrates that keyword techniques are effective for receptive learning but that repetition is a superior strategy for learning to produce the foreign word. Performance is optimal when learners combine both strategies. The nature of the keyword is crucial--whereas imageable noun keywords promote learning, verb keywords actually impede it. A theoretical analysis of the roles of phonological short-term memory, imagery, and lexical factors in FL vocabulary learning is presented.

Don’t just repeat after me: Retrieval practice is better than imitation for foreign vocabulary learning

“…Of course, our results do not imply that imitation practice is a completely futile strategy for L2 learning (see Ellis & Beaton, 1993), nor that L2 instruction programs rely on imitation as their sole pedagogical strategy (in fact, many programs include some time spent on some form of testing/retrieval practice). However, given that the present findings unambiguously demonstrate a more effective method of training than imitation-one that requires only a subtle modification in training procedure, without any increase in training time-we contend that for L2 vocabulary learning, imitation should not be automatically assumed to be the tried and true instructional procedure.…”

“…Also, an early study on foreign vocabulary learning showed that saying aloud the L2 vocabulary produced better learning than did studying the items silently (Seibert, 1927). More recently, Ellis and Beaton (1993) found that for English-speaking college subjects learning German vocabulary, repeated imitation (saying aloud) of the German words produced better performance on a later production test (i.e., giving the German equivalent when cued with the English word) than did learning using the keyword mnemonic, which involved visual imagery to associate the English and German equivalents, but no overt production. These findings are consistent with the broader idea that the phonological loop has a critical function in supporting the learning of novel phonological forms, and hence new vocabulary (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998).…”

Receptive and Productive Vocabulary Acquisition: Examining Processing Time and Memory Threshold

“…. better long-term representations" (Ellis & Beaton, 1993, p. 553; see also Papagno & Vallar, 1992), particularly when said aloud (Ellis & Beaton, 1993). Such verbal repetition of an item has been repeatedly shown elsewhere to have positive results with both acquisition and retention (Baddeley, 1997;Cowan, 2000;Ellis, 1995;Ellis & Beaton, 1993;Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997;Hulstijn, 2001;Segler, 2002).…”

“…The connection between the context signal and new piece of information is initially very fragile; however, remaining activated for only two to thirty seconds, after which time it is subject to decay if not reactivated by an additional stimulus or thought process (Cowan, 2000). One of the simpler ways to achieve this reactivation is through repetition of the material, a method that has enjoyed widespread and longstanding support from both within and without SLA literature (Bahrick, Bahrick, Bahrick & Bahrick, 1993;Cowan, 2000;Ellis & Beaton, 1993;Ellis, 2002;Ericsson & Kintsch, 1994;Gass & Mackey, 2002;Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997;Henriksen, 1999;Hulstijn, 2002;Knowles, 2008;Lewis, 1993;Mohensi-Far, 2008a, 2008bNakata, 2008;Nation, 2001Nation, , 2002Papagno & Vallar, 1992;Schmitt, 2000;Segler, 2002;Tarone, 2002;Wei, 2007;Weil, 2008). In addition to strengthening the specific relationship between the new piece of information and its context signal, such repetition also helps to secure the context signal into the wider neural network (Henriksen, 1999).…”

“…The repetitious study of a pre-determined list of items has repeatedly been shown to have great advantages for long-term memory formation within both SLA research and other related fields (Bahrick, Bahrick, Bahrick & Bahrick, 1993;Cowan, 2000;Ellis & Beaton, 1993;Ellis, 2002;Ericsson & Kintsch, 1994;Gass & Mackey, 2002;Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997;Henriksen, 1999;Hulstijn, 2002;Knowles, 2008;Lewis, 1993;Mohensi-Far, 2008a, 2008bNakata, 2008;Nation, 2001Nation, , 2002Papagno & Vallar, 1992;Schmitt, 2000;Segler, 2002;Tarone, 2002;Wei, 2007;Weil, 2008). It is, therefore, important to determine at what point, if a specific point can be ascertained at all, of study items are receptively (or passively) known, at what point they are productively (or actively) known, and at what point the items move from being receptively to productively known.…”