This study focuses on the effects of task type on the retention and ease of activation of second language (L2) vocabulary, based on the multi-feature hypothesis (Moonen, De Graaff, & Westhoff, 2006). Two tasks were compared: a writing task and a list-learning task. It was hypothesized that performing the writing task would yield higher retention and ease of activation of the target words than performing the list task. Translation tests and picture description tests were used to measure acquisition of the target vocabulary. Think-aloud protocols were used to study task performance. Results show that the writing group significantly outperformed the list group on both test types and on both direct and delayed tests. These findings are discussed in the light of task design characteristics and the issue of time on task.
AndersonJ. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications. 5th edition.New York: Worth.
2.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.
3.
BaddeleyA. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BereiterC. (1991). Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules. Educational Researcher, 20, 10–16.
5.
BereiterC. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BowlesM. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at an L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 359–387.
7.
BroederP.PlunkettK. (1994). Connectionism and second language acquisition. In EllisN. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 421–453). London: Academic Press Limited.
8.
BrownT.PerryJ. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655–670.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CraikF. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present … and future?Memory, 10, 305–318.
12.
CraikF.LockhartR. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11, 671–684.
13.
DriessenC.WesthoffG.HaenenJ.BrekelmansM. (2008). A qualitative analysis of language learning tasks: The design of a tool. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40, 803–820.
14.
EllisN. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631–664.
15.
EllisN. (2001). Memory for language. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
EllisN. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In DoughtyC.LongM. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 33–68). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
17.
EllisN. (2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In LongM.DoughtyC. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 139–158). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
18.
EllisN.Larsen-FreemanD. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59, 90–125.
19.
EllisN.SchmidtR. (1998). Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 307–336.
20.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
EllisR. (2009). Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
22.
EricssonK.A.SimonH.A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
FolseK. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. Tesol Quarterly, 40, 273–293.
24.
GasserM. (1990). Connectionism and universals of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 179–199.
25.
GooJ. (2010). Working memory and reactivity. Language Learning, 60, 712–752.
26.
HillM.LauferB. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 87–106.
27.
HulstijnJ. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193–223.
28.
HulstijnJ. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In DoughtyC.LongM. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–381). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
29.
HulstijnJ.LauferB. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
30.
KempeV.MacWhinneyB. (1998). The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 543–587.
31.
KeppelG.WickensT. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. 4th edition.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
KimY. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 285–325.
33.
LauferB. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from form-focused activities. Language Teaching, 42, 341–354.
34.
LauferB.HulstijnJ. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
35.
McClellandJ. (2000). Connectionist models of memory. In TulvingE.CraikF. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 583–596). New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
McClellandJ.RumelhartD.HintonG. (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In RumelhartD.McClellandJ., & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Volume 1 (pp. 3–44). London: The MIT Press.
37.
MoonenM. (2008). Testing the multi-feature hypothesis. Tasks, mental actions and second language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
38.
MoonenM.De GraaffR.WesthoffG. (2006). Focused tasks, mental actions and second language learning. Cognitive and connectionist accounts of task effectiveness. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 35–53.
39.
MorrisC.BransfordD.FranksJ. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 16, 519–533.
40.
NelsonR. (2013). Expanding the role of connectionism in SLA theory. Language Learning, 63, 1–33.
41.
NeyW.PearsonB. (1990). Connectionism as a model of language learning: parallels in foreign language teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 474–482.
42.
PajaresM. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
43.
ParadisM. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
44.
ParibakhtT.WescheM. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In CoadyJ.HuckingT. (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
PetersE.HulstijnJ.H.SercuL.LutjeharmsM. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning, 59, 113–151.
46.
PicaT. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: a task-based perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 339–352.
47.
RandallM. (2007). Memory, psychology and second language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
48.
RobinsonP.EllisN. (2008). Conclusion: cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction: Issues for research. In RobinsonP.EllisN. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489–545). New York: Routledge.
49.
RumelhartD.E.McClellandJ.L. (1987). Learning the past tenses of English verbs: Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing. In MacWhinneyB. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 195–248). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50.
SachsR.SuhB. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 197–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
SpadaN.RantaL.LightbownP. (1996). Working with teachers in second language research. In SchachterJ.GassS. (Eds.), Second language classroom research: Issues and opportunities (pp. 31–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Van den BrandenK. (2006). Introduction: task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In van den BrandenK. (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
WebbS. (2005). The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
54.
WesthoffG. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine: Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 12, 58–62.
