Learning new vocabulary in German: the effects of inferring word meanings, type of feedback, and time of test

Carpenter, Shana K.; Sachs, Riebana E.; Martin, Beth A.; Schmidt, Kristian; Looft, Ruxandra

doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0185-7

Cited by 28 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, when guesses are followed by immediate study (guess/immediate-study), the guess is still active in working memory during study, and thus may result in the encoding of an elaborated trace in which the guess functions as a mediator between the cue and the target. Prior evidence that mediators enhance subsequent memory (e.g., Carpenter, 2011;Carpenter, Sachs, Martin, Schmidt, & Looft, 2012;Dunlosky et al, 2005;Pyc & Rawson, 2010) supports this potential explanation for why performance is greater in the guess/immediate-study condition than in the prestudy/ immediate-study condition (as in Exp. 2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 62%

When is guessing incorrectly better than studying for enhancing memory?

Vaughn

Rawson

2012

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, Kornell, Hays, and Bjork (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35:989-998, 2009) demonstrated that incorrect guessing can benefit subsequent memory to a greater degree than can an equivalent amount of study time. We explored this intriguing finding to determine which factors moderate the advantage of incorrect guessing relative to study. In contrast to the findings of Kornell et al., our Experiment 1 revealed that incorrect guessing resulted in worse performance than did studying and that the number of incorrect guesses did not moderate the effect. In contrast, Experiment 2 revealed that the timing of subsequent study moderated the effectiveness of incorrect guessing over study. Final test performance was greater for incorrectly guessed items than for prestudied items when a subsequent study opportunity occurred immediately after the pretrial, whereas the pattern reversed when subsequent study was delayed. This crossover interaction emerged largely because prestudy items showed a classic spacing effect, whereas the guess items did not. One plausible explanation for the absence of a spacing benefit for guess items is that delaying the subsequent study trial increases source-monitoring errors during retrieval, such that participants confuse their original guess with the correctly studied target. However, Experiment 3 provided evidence against this source-monitoring account. We concluded by discussing other possible accounts of why the timing of study could moderate the effectiveness of incorrect guessing.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 62%

When is guessing incorrectly better than studying for enhancing memory?

Vaughn

Rawson

2012

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The easiest way to go about this problem is exemplified by associative learning, a procedure that concentrates on the statistical learning of the co-occurrence of data from speech and its context (Breitenstein et al, 2004; Whiting et al, 2007, 2008). The advantage of this procedure is that it poses low cognitive demands during training (Pulvermüller, 1999; Dobel et al, 2010) and is resistant to errors made during a phase of guessing (Carpenter et al, 2012). The underlying rationale is that once a word is heard in an utterance or seen in a sentence, a set of potential meanings can be inferred from the context, thus reducing the number of possible referents (Adelman et al, 2006).…”

Section: The Role Of Sociality In Second Language Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

How relevant is social interaction in second language learning?

Verga¹,

Kotz²

2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verbal language is the most widespread mode of human communication, and an intrinsically social activity. This claim is strengthened by evidence emerging from different fields, which clearly indicates that social interaction influences human communication, and more specifically, language learning. Indeed, research conducted with infants and children shows that interaction with a caregiver is necessary to acquire language. Further evidence on the influence of sociality on language comes from social and linguistic pathologies, in which deficits in social and linguistic abilities are tightly intertwined, as is the case for Autism, for example. However, studies on adult second language (L2) learning have been mostly focused on individualistic approaches, partly because of methodological constraints, especially of imaging methods. The question as to whether social interaction should be considered as a critical factor impacting upon adult language learning still remains underspecified. Here, we review evidence in support of the view that sociality plays a significant role in communication and language learning, in an attempt to emphasize factors that could facilitate this process in adult language learning. We suggest that sociality should be considered as a potentially influential factor in adult language learning and that future studies in this domain should explicitly target this factor.

show abstract

“…Similarly, contradicting results were found in studies that compared the retention of inferred and given word meaning. Some experiments showed better word retention in an inference condition, compared to a condition in which words were presented in the same context but with the word meaning given (Carpenter, Sachs, Martin, Schmidt, & Looft, ; Hulstijn, , Experiment 5). Others found no benefits of inferences (Hulstijn, , Experiments 1 and 2), even when participants spent more time processing each word by inferring the meaning than when the meaning was provided (Mondria, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual Richness and Word Learning: Context Enhances Comprehension but Retrieval Enhances Retention

Broek

Takashima

Segers³

et al. 2018

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning new vocabulary from context typically requires multiple encounters during which word meaning can be retrieved from memory or inferred from context. We compared the effect of memory retrieval and context inferences on short‐ and long‐term retention in three experiments. Participants studied novel words and then practiced the words either in an uninformative context that required the retrieval of word meaning from memory (“I need the funguo”) or in an informative context from which word meaning could be inferred (“I want to unlock the door: I need the funguo”). The informative context facilitated word comprehension during practice. However, later recall of word form and meaning and word recognition in a new context were better after successful retrieval practice and retrieval practice with feedback than after context‐inference practice. These findings suggest benefits of retrieval during contextualized vocabulary learning whereby the uninformative context enhanced word retention by triggering memory retrieval. Open Practices This article has been awarded Open Materials and Open Data badges. Stimuli and datasets are publicly accessible via the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/eujyn. Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.

show abstract

Learning new vocabulary in German: the effects of inferring word meanings, type of feedback, and time of test

Cited by 28 publications

References 22 publications

When is guessing incorrectly better than studying for enhancing memory?

When is guessing incorrectly better than studying for enhancing memory?

How relevant is social interaction in second language learning?

Contextual Richness and Word Learning: Context Enhances Comprehension but Retrieval Enhances Retention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About