What Effects Do Text-based Tasks Promoting Generation Have on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition?
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · cited 1× · see citing works
“lnadental or indirect vocabulary learning, vocabulary learning which occurs without the speafic intent to focus on vocabulary, has been shown to be an effective way of learning word meanings from context (Jenkins et al 1984, Saragi et al 1978, Nagy et al 1985, Day et al 1991) Several researchers (e g Craik and Tulving…”
BackgroundNagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.2307/747758 · Cited by 1,249 · see citing works
Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading
Day, R. R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991) · Reading in a Foreign Language · doi:10.64152/10125/67035 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning
Schmitt, N. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089921 · Cited by 1,467 · see citing works
Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00164 · Cited by 819 · see citing works
Nation, P. (2007) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.2167/illt039.0 · Cited by 494 · see citing works
“Generative use involves meeting or using previously met language items in ways that they have not been used or met before and produces deeper learning than the simple retrieval of previously met items (Joe, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDigital game-based vocabulary learning: where are we and where are we going?
Zou, D., Huang, Y., & Xie, H. (2021) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1640745 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: the involvement load hypothesis on trial
Keating, G. D. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089922 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Nakata, T. (2011) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.520675 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Eckerth, J., & Tavakoli, P. (2012) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168811431377 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12001 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks
Newton, J. (2013) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168812460814 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
11. Small-group meta-analytic talk and Spanish L2 development
Moranski, K., & Toth, P. D. (2016) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.45.12mor · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- JOE, A.
- Affiliations
- Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- JOE, A.
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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