The Production Effect (PE) is a memory phenomenon, referring to memory advantage for produced items (read aloud) over non-produced items (read silently). Since vocalizing shows consistent memory benefits, it has been suggested as a mnemonic that can be used to assist vocabulary learning. The present study investigated the PE in L2 vocabulary learning and examined whether learning is durable over time. Hebrew speaking students learned new words in Esperanto, either by vocal production or by no-production. Retention interval varied between participants – from immediate, 1-week, and 2-weeks following the learning phase. The results showed a significant PE – a memory advantage for vocally produced over non-produced words across all learning intervals. Memory performance was higher in the immediate tests than in the delayed tests. The produced words were more durable and showed less memory decay over time. These findings support using vocalization as a simple yet effective memory tool in the first stages of L2 learning, as a classroom activity and as a homework practice assignment.
AlvesS.M.L. (2014). Vocabulary acquisition in second language. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, 2, 1–11.
3.
BaddeleyA.GathercoleS.PapagnoC. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.
4.
BarcroftJ. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52, 323–363.
5.
BarcroftJ. (2004). Second language vocabulary acquisition: A lexical input processing approach. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 200–208.
6.
BarcroftJ. (2009). Strategies and performance in intentional L2 vocabulary learning. Language Awareness, 18, 74–89.
7.
BellK.E.LimberJ.E. (2010). Reading skill, textbook marking, and course performance. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 56–67.
8.
BodnerG.E.MacLeodC.M. (2016). The benefits of studying by production . . . And of studying production: Introduction to the special issue on the production effect in memory.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 70, 89–92.
9.
BodnerG.E.TaikhA. (2012). Reassessing the basis of the production effect in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1711–1719.
10.
BoersF.LindstrombergS. (2008). Opening chapter: How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In BoersF.LindstrombergS. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 1–61). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
11.
BorerL. (2007). Depth of processing in private and social speech: Its role in the retention of word knowledge by adult EAP learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 269–295.
12.
CarrolG.ConklinK. (2014). Getting your wires crossed: Evidence for fast processing of L1 idioms in an L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 784–797.
13.
CastelA.D.RhodesM.G.FriedmanM.C. (2013). Predicting memory benefits in the production effect: The use and misuse of self-generated distinctive cues when making judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 41, 28–35.
14.
ClarkJ.M.PaivioA. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210.
15.
ElgortI. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 61, 367–413.
16.
ElgortI.NationI.S.P. (2010). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Familiar answers to new questions. In SeedhouseP.WalshS.JenksC. (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp. 89–104). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
EllisN.BeatonA. (1993). Factors affecting the learning of foreign language vocabulary: Imagery keyword mediators and phonological short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 46, 533–558.
18.
EllisN.SinclairS. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 49, 234–250.
19.
FolseK.S. (2004). Myths about teaching and learning second language vocabulary: What recent research says. TESL Reporter, 37, 1–13.
20.
ForrinN.D.MacLeodC.M.OzubkoJ.D. (2012). Widening the boundaries of the production effect. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1046–1055.
21.
GathercoleS.E. (1998). The development of memory. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 3–27.
22.
GledhillC. (2000). The grammar of Esperanto: A corpus-based description. 2nd edition. Munich: Lincom Europa.
23.
GoldD. (1980). Towards a study of possible Yiddish and Hebrew influence on Esperanto. In SzerdahelyiI. (Ed.), Miscellanea interlinguistica (pp. 300–367). Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
24.
GordonK.R.McGregorK.K. (2014). A spatially supported forced-choice recognition test reveals children’s long-term memory for newly learned word forms. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 164.
25.
HatchE. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In HatchE. (Ed.) Second language acquisition (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
26.
HuM.NationI.S.P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 403–443.
27.
HulstijnJ.H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In DoughtyC.J.LongM.H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–381). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
28.
IchtM.MamaY. (2015). The production effect in memory: A prominent mnemonic in children. Journal of Child Language, 42, 1102–1124.
29.
IchtM.Bergerzon-BitonO.MamaY. (2019). The production effect in adults with dysarthria: Improving long-term verbal memory by vocal production. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 29, 131–143.
30.
IchtM.MamaY.AlgomD. (2014). The production effect in memory: Multiple species of distinctiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 886.
31.
KangS.H.GollanT.H.PashlerH. (2013). Don’t just repeat after me: Retrieval practice is better than imitation for foreign vocabulary learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1259–1265.
32.
KelloggR.T. (2007). Are written and spoken recall of text equivalent?American Journal of Psychology, 120, 415–428.
33.
KrashenS. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
34.
KrashenS.D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
35.
KrishnanS.WatkinsK.E.BishopD.V. (2017). The effect of recall, reproduction, and restudy on word learning: a pre-registered study. BMC Psychology, 5, 28.
36.
LambertA.M.BodnerG.E.TaikhA. (2016). The production effect in long-list recall: In no particular order?. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 70, 165–176.
37.
LauferB. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In LaurenC.NordmanM. (Eds.), Special language: From humans to thinking machines (pp. 316–323). Clevedon: Multilingual Matter.
38.
LauferB. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary acquisition. In Foster-CohenS. (ed.), EUROSLA Yearbook 5 (pp. 223–250). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
39.
LinO.MacLeodC.M. (2012). Aging and the production effect: A test of the distinctiveness account. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 212–216.
40.
MacdonaldD.YuleG.PowersM. (1994). Attempts to improve English L2 pronunciation: The variable effects of different types of instruction. Language Learning, 44, 75–100.
41.
MachaD. (1979). Reading comprehension of non-native students in English composition at the freshman level. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 425–427.
42.
MacLeodC.M. (2011). I said, you said: The production effect gets personal. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1197–1202.
43.
MacLeodC.M.GopieN.HourihanK.L.NearyK.R.OzubkoJ.D. (2010). The production effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 671–685.
44.
MamaY.IchtM. (2016a). Auditioning the distinctiveness account: Expanding the production effect to the auditory modality reveals the superiority of writing over vocalising. Memory, 24, 98–113.
45.
MamaY.IchtM. (2016b). Influence of retrieval mode on effects of production: Evidence for costs in free recall. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 70, 177–185.
46.
MamaY.IchtM. (2018). Production on hold: Delaying vocal production enhances the Production Effect in free recall. Memory, 26, 589–602.
47.
MamaY.IchtM. (2019). The Production effect in adults with ADHD with and without Methylphenidate (MPH): Vocalization improves verbal learning. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 25, 230–235.
48.
MamaY.FostikL.IchtM. (2018). The impact of different background noises on the production effect: Evidence for costs and benefits in free recall. Acta Psychologica, 185, 235–242.
49.
MayerR.E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85–139.
50.
MayerR.E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13: 125–139.
51.
McIntyreJ.S.CraikF.I.M. (1987). Age differences in memory for item and source information. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 175–192.
52.
MeyerCh.M.GurevychI. (2012). Wiktionary: A new rival for expert-built lexicons?: Exploring the possibilities of collaborative lexicography. In GrangerS.PaquotM. (Eds.), Electronic lexicography (pp. 259–291). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
NagyW.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108.
55.
NationI.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
NationI.S.P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 1–12.
57.
NationI.S.P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.
58.
NationP.WaringR. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In SchmittN.McCarthyM. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
OxfordR.L.ScarcellaR.C. (1994). Second language vocabulary learning among adults: State of the art in vocabulary instruction. System, 22, 231–243.
60.
OzubkoJ.D.MacLeodC.M. (2010). The production effect in memory: Evidence that distinctiveness underlies the benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1543–1547.
61.
OzubkoJ.D.HourihanK.L.MacLeodC.M. (2012). Production benefits learning: The production effect endures and improves memory for text. Memory, 20, 717–727.
62.
PaivioA. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston (Reprinted 1979, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
63.
PlassJ.JonesL. (2005). Multimedia learning in second language acquisition. In MayerR.E.s (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 467–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.
64.
PrinceP. (1995). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 80, 478–493.
65.
QianD.D. (1996). ESL vocabulary acquisition: Contextualization and des contextualization. Modern Language Review, 53, 120–142.
66.
ReaganT.BrownC.ChartersD., et al. (2005). Student standards for learning Esperanto K-16 in the United States. Washington, DC: Esperantic Studies Foundation.
67.
RiversW.M. (1968). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
68.
SchmittN. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
69.
SchmittN.JiangX.GrabeW. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 26–43.
70.
SeibertL.C. (1927). An experiment in learning French vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 294–309.
71.
Taitelbaum-SweadR.IchtM.MamaY. (2017). The effect of learning modality and auditory feedback on word memory: Cochlear-implanted versus normal-hearing adults. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 28, 222–231.
72.
Taitelbaum-SweadR.MamaY.IchtM. (2018). The effect of presentation mode and production type on word memory for hearing impaired signers. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 29, 875–884.
73.
TightD.G. (2010). Perceptual learning style matching and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 60, 792–833.
74.
UlijnJ.M.KempenG.A.M. (1976). The role of the first language in second language reading comprehension: Some experimental evidence. In NickelG. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics (pp. 495–507). Stuttgart: HochschulVerlag.
75.
WaringR. (2002). Basic principles and practice in vocabulary instruction. Language Teacher – Kyoto-Jalt, 26, 11–12.
76.
WebbS. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
77.
WebbS.NationP. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
78.
YanguasI. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 48–67.
