5. Receptive, productive, and receptive + productive L2 vocabulary learning: what difference does it make?

Mondria, Jan-Arjen; Wiersma, Boukje

doi:10.1075/lllt.10.08mon

Cited by 59 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference in findings between this study and Barcroft (2006) might be due to design features that may have reduced the effects of word writing in the earlier study (learning effect from pretest, participants' knowledge of the posttest format prior to the treatment). The results also do not provide support for a facilitatory effect for word writing on knowledge of form-meaning connection in comparison to learning word-picture pairs when time on task is controlled in contrast to Thomas and Dieter's (1987) earlier findings and research indicating that productive learning may lead to superior learning on measures of productive recall than receptive learning (Griffin & Harley, 1996;Mondria & Wiersma, 2004;Stoddard, 1929;Waring, 1997;S. Webb, 2009aS.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 45%

“…In the second experiment, the non-writing condition contributed to higher scores when scoring for partially correct spelling. The findings were surprising as they contrast the findings of research on paired-associate learning indicating that productive learning leads to higher scores on productive tests than receptive learning (Griffin & Harley, 1996;Mondria & Wiersma, 2004;Stoddard, 1929;Waring, 1997;S. Webb, 2009aS.…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

“…Thomas and Dieter's (1987) finding of a positive effect for word writing is supported by studies comparing receptive and productive paired-associate learning conditions and transfer-appropriate processing theory. Research has shown that productive learning is likely to lead to greater productive knowledge than receptive learning (Griffin & Harley, 1996;Mondria & Wiersma, 2004;Stoddard, 1929;Waring, 1997;S. Webb, 2009aS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Re-examining the effects of word writing on vocabulary learning

Webb

Piasecki

2018

ITL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the effects of word writing on vocabulary learning by comparing three conditions in which there was (a) limited time to write words, (b) unlimited time to write words, and (c) a non-writing word-picture pairs comparison. Non-native speakers studying English as a second language encountered 8 word-picture pairs in each condition and were administered a test measuring form recall and another measuring receptive knowledge of written form. The results indicated that there was little difference between scores on both tests when time on task was the same. However, when the participants had as much time as they needed to write and learn words they had higher scores on both dependent measures than when learning in the other two conditions. The findings suggest that an ecologically valid approach to word writing may facilitate vocabulary learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 45%

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Re-examining the effects of word writing on vocabulary learning

Webb

Piasecki

2018

ITL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mere exposure to words from receptive input does not seem to guarantee productive conversion (Schmitt, 2008). The efficiency of productive learning of vocabulary has also been suggested in other studies (e,g., Lee, 2003;Mondria & Wiersma, 2004).…”

Section: Results Of Vocabulary Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Word Exposure Frequency on Incidental Learning of the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge

Teng

2016

GEMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the rate at which depth of vocabulary knowledge was learned and retained from reading a 300-headword graded reader, The Star Zoo. A total of 30 tertiarylevel students who learn English as a foreign language (EFL) in China volunteered to take part in a reading program. Incidental learning and retention of the depth of vocabulary knowledge was measured, complementing previous research along this line. The depth of vocabulary knowledge was examined by using 36 test items within six bands of frequency (more than 20 times to only once). The target words were substituted with pseudo-words. Two tests were employed to measure receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. This study was completed in three sessions: Students read the book for the first time and finished tests; students read the book for the second time seven days later, and finished tests; finally, retention tests were completed three months later. The findings showed that incidental vocabulary learning through reading was very limited, and this learning was largely based on a high frequency of word occurrence, that is, the higher the frequency level was, the better the learners' word-learning was. The number of times that Chinese EFL learners needed to encounter a word to recognize vocabulary knowledge was 14 times, and at least 18 times were needed for productive vocabulary knowledge. This study shows that attention to building knowledge of known words instead of solely introducing new words should be paid, and that both word exposure frequency and elaborate word processing are important as part of successful vocabulary development.

show abstract

“…Several studies (e.g. Mondria and Wiersma, 2004;Waring, 1997b;Webb, 2009), however, concluded that the direction in which vocabulary is learned, i.e. either L2 -L1 (receptive) or L1 -L2 (productive) when learning word pairs, influences how learners are able to use the words.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary of Slavic EFL learners

Šišková

2016

Topics in Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the relationship between learners' receptive vocabulary knowledge as measured by the Vocabulary Size Test (Nation and Beglar, 2007) and free productive vocabulary knowledge as demonstrated by the learners when writing a short story based on pictures. The focus is on three different areas of productive vocabulary use: lexical diversity (i.e. the proportion of different words in a text), lexical sophistication (i.e. the proportion of advanced words in a text) and lexical density (i.e. the proportion of content words in a text). The results of a bivariate correlation analysis indicate that there is a moderate relationship between learners' receptive vocabulary knowledge and lexical diversity of the texts they produce; there is a weak relationship between their receptive vocabulary knowledge and lexical sophistication in the texts; and there is no relationship between their receptive vocabulary knowledge and lexical density.

show abstract

5. Receptive, productive, and receptive + productive L2 vocabulary learning: what difference does it make?

Cited by 59 publications

References 0 publications

Re-examining the effects of word writing on vocabulary learning

Re-examining the effects of word writing on vocabulary learning

The Effects of Word Exposure Frequency on Incidental Learning of the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge

The relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary of Slavic EFL learners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About