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 This research received no specific grant from any funding agency. We are grateful to Judit Kormos, Language Learning reviewers, Luke Plonsky, Yo In'nami, Tatsuya Nakata, and Akira Murakami for their constructive feedback on data analysis and earlier versions of the manuscript. We also thank the following researchers who graciously provided information necessary for the current meta-analysis to be completed:Meta-Analysis: Repetition and Vocabulary Learning an upcoming comprehension test, vocabulary test format). Based on the findings, we suggest future directions for L2 incidental vocabulary learning research.
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.
This study examined the relationship between oral fluency and use of multiword sequences (MWSs) across four proficiency levels (Low B1 to C1 of the Common European Framework of Reference). Data came from 56 learners taking the speaking test of the Test of English for Educational Purposes, and our analysis obtained different measures of fluency (speed, breakdown, repair) and MWSs (frequency, proportion, association). Results showed that (a) high-frequency n-grams correlated positively with articulation rate; (b) n-gram proportion correlated negatively with frequency of mid-clause pauses; and (c) n-gram association strength correlated positively with frequency of end-clause pauses and negatively with repair frequency. Qualitative analysis suggested that the test-takers borrowed some task-specific n-grams from the task instructions and used them frequently in their performance. Whereas lower proficiency speakers used these n-grams verbatim, C1 level speakers used them competently in a variety of forms. We discuss significant implications of the findings for phraseology and language testing research.
The current study investigated the extent to which L2 learners' productive vocabulary knowledge could predict multiple dimensions of spontaneous speech production. A total of 39 EFL participants with varying L2 proficiency levels first completed a productive vocabulary knowledge task (Lex30). Their spontaneous speech, elicited via a series of picture description task, was then assessed for comprehensibility (i.e., ease of understanding), accentedness (i.e., linguistic nativelikeness), and fluency (i.e., speech rate). The findings showed that the productive vocabulary scores significantly correlated with L2 fluency, but not with comprehensibility or accentedness. Such results might indicate that more proficient L2 learners, as indicated by their productive vocabulary scores, might be able to speak spontaneously without too many pauses and repetitions, and at a faster tempo. Finally, future research directions will be discussed with a focus on the relationships between vocabulary knowledge and speaking.Key words: productive vocabulary knowledge; L2 vocabulary; L2 speaking; comprehensibility; fluency Introduction Measuring Productive Vocabulary KnowledgeVocabulary knowledge has gained recent prominence in second language (L2) education, as research seeks to examine the relationship between vocabulary size measures and general language proficiency. This has much practical appeal since scores from vocabulary size measures might act as a proxy for general language proficiency (Meara, 1996). Vocabulary size measures tend to elicit vocabulary knowledge via receptive, or passive, vocabulary knowledge tests (e.g., Vocabulary Levels Test; Nation, 1983Nation, , 1990; the Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test; Meara & Jones, 1990). Accordingly, researchers (e.g. Milton, Wade, & Hopkins, 2010;Milton, 2010Milton, , 2013 have generally adopted a wide range of receptive vocabulary tests (e.g., standard yes/no vocabulary size tests), in order to compare test scores to overall proficiency benchmarks (e.g., CEFR levels; Milton 2010), placement tests (e.g., Harrington & Carey, 2009), and standardized proficiency examinations (e.g., IELTS;Milton et al., 2010). Additionally, other research has examined the predictive power of L2 vocabulary knowledge for the four main language skills (i.e., reading, writing, listening, and, to a lesser extent, speaking) (e.g. Baba, 2009;Farvardin & Koosha, 2011;Laufer & Levitzky-Aviad, 2015;Meara & Jones, 1990;Meara & Milton, 2003;Milton, 2009Milton, , 2010Milton, , 2013Milton et al., 2010;Qian, 1999, 2002, Schoonen et al., 2003and, Staehr, 2008and, Staehr, , 2009). This brief summary highlights that a majority of the existing studies likely elicit vocabulary knowledge receptively, and compare such knowledge with reading, writing, and listening performance.
The current study investigates the extent to which receptive vocabulary size test scores can predict second language (L2) speaking ability. Forty-six international students with an advanced level of L2 proficiency completed a receptive vocabulary task (Yes/No test; Meara & Miralpeix, 2017) and a spontaneous speaking task (oral picture narrative). Elicited speech samples were submitted to expert rating based on speakers’ vocabulary features as well as lexical sophistication measures. Results indicate that vocabulary size was significantly associated with vocabulary rating. However, learners with large vocabulary sizes did not necessarily produce lexically sophisticated L2 words during speech. A closer examination of the data reveals complexities regarding the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and speaking. Based on these findings, we explore implications for L2 vocabulary assessment in classroom teaching contexts and provide important suggestions for future research on the vocabulary-and-speaking link.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.