Cited by 245Second Language Acquisition and LearningReading and Literacy DevelopmentEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

What Effects Do Text-based Tasks Promoting Generation Have on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition?

JOE, A.·1998·Applied Linguistics

Abstract

A large proportion of vocabulary is acquired incidentally from written contexts However, in text-based studies promoting generative processing,it is not dear if, or to what extent, generation influences incidental vocabulary learning This study examined the effects of text-based tasks and background knowledge (pnor vocabulary knowledge and a disposition to use generative learning tactics when takling new vocabulary) on incidental vocabulary acquisition Forty-eight adult ESL learners were randomly assigned to one of three treatments (a) reading and retelling a text with explicit generative training and without access to the text during recall, (b) reading and retelling a text without explict generative training but with access to the text during recall, and (c) neither reading nor retelling a text All subjects sat a pre-test (individual interviews and a read and retell task) and post-tests (individual interviews and two multiple-choice tests) designed to tap partial vocabulary knowledge gains Results indicated that the process of reading and retelling a text promotes incidental vocabulary learning and that generative processing enhances vocabulary learning with greater levels of generative processing leading to greater vocabulary gains for unknown words

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/applin/19.3.357

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Generative use produces deeper learning than simple retrieval of previously met items.

    “Generati v e use in v ol v es meeting or using pre v iously met language items in ways that they ha v e not been used or met before and produces deeper learning than the simple retrie v al of pre v iously met items (Joe, 1998).”

    From The Four Strands (2007) · cites this paper as Joe, 1998

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
JOE, A.
Affiliations
Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
Corresponding author
JOE, A.
Venue
Applied Linguistics
Published
1998-09-01
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
357-377
ISSN
  • 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-450X
OpenAlex
W2020858146
Cited by
245
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 15
FWCI
2.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Victoria University of Wellington
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
incidental vocabulary learning, generative processing, text-based tasks, retelling, prior knowledge, generative learning strategy, ESL learners, vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension, second language vocabulary acquisition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review