The Effects of Receptive and Productive Word

Retrieval Practice on Second Language Vocabulary

Learning

YANAGISAWA Akifumi Graduate School, Shinshu University

Abstract

The present study examined the effects of different types of word retrieval practice on L2 vocabulary learning. Eighteen undergraduates at a Japanese university were asked to learn twenty-four English pseudo-words, paired with illustrations, in three conditions: receptive retrieval, productive retrieval, and control. In the receptive retrieval condition, they received opportunities to recall meanings; in the productive retrieval condition, to recall forms; and in the control condition, to repeat words while looking at their paired illustration. Data from posttests indicated that (1) on the receptive vocabulary knowledge test, the receptive retrieval condition scored significantly higher than the control condition and equal to the productive retrieval condition, and (2) on the productive retrieval knowledge test, the productive retrieval condition was significantly more effective than the other two conditions. Key Words: Vocabulary Learning, Retrieval Practice, Test Effect

1. Introduction

Retrieval, defined as the cognitive process of recalling information (Roediger &

Guynn, 1996, p. 197), can be used as a vocabulary learning activity. Nation (2013) stated that “if the word is subsequently retrieved during the task then the memory of that word will be strengthened” (p. 107). Essentially, having repeated opportunities for retrieval facilitates its effectiveness. He also noted two types of retrieval: receptive and productive, stating that “receptive retrieval involves perceiving the form and having to retrieve its meaning when the word is met in listening or reading. Productive retrieval involves wishing to communicate the meaning of the word and having to retrieve its spoken or

139

KATE Journal vol.30

written form as in speaking or writing” (p. 107). For concrete activities, Nation (2013) mentioned incidental vocabulary learning by using word cards, reading or listening to the same material multiple times, and repeatedly discussing a single topic with different individuals. This paper presents the results of a study designed to examine the effects of retrieval practices on second language (L2) vocabulary learning and discusses the pedagogical implications of its findings.

1.1 Receptive Knowledge of Vocabulary and Productive Knowledge of Vocabulary Laufer, Elder, Hill, and Congdon (2004) operationalized receptive and productive

vocabulary knowledge as “supplying the meaning for a given form” and “supplying the form for a given concept”, respectively. Several research articles have reported that L2 learners had more receptive knowledge than productive knowledge (e.g., Laufer, 1998) and that receptive knowledge was acquired faster than productive knowledge (Waring, 1997). Some studies have examined how each aspect of vocabulary develops: Laufer and Paribakht (1998) focused on differences in learning context, and Waring (1997) and Webb (2007, 2009) investigated differences in learning conditions. However, more research is needed to examine how both aspects of vocabulary knowledge develop because the correlation is still unclear.

1.2 Previous Studies of the Effects of Retrieval

Past research has illustrated that taking a test of items learnt is more effective than restudying the items, a finding known as the “Testing Effect” (Roediger & Butler, 2011). According to Roediger and Karpicke (2006a), “Taking a test on material can have a greater positive effect on future retention of that material than spending an equivalent amount of time restudying the material, even when performance on the test is far from perfect and no feedback is given on missed information” (p. 181). The Retrieval Hypothesis explains that the Testing Effect is caused by the process of retrieval (Dempster, 1996).

The effect of retrieval has also been examined in the context of L2 vocabulary learning, with the finding that retrieval practice positively impacts vocabulary learning (e.g., Barcroft, 2007; Carrier & Pashler, 1992; Kang, Gollan, & Pashler, 2013). Barcroft (2007) and Kang, Gollan, & Pashler (2013) reported that having opportunities to retrieve the form of target words from their corresponding illustrations, so called productive retrieval, had a positive effect on L2 vocabulary learning compared with the condition without retrieval opportunities. Furthermore, having opportunities to retrieve meaning through L1 translation of target words strengthened the link between the target word and

140

The Effects of Receptive and Productive Word Retrieval Practice on Second Language Vocabulary Learning

its corresponding L1 word, which was measured by receptive vocabulary knowledge tests (Carrier & Pashler, 1992). As for measurements, only Kang et al. (2013) measured both receptive and productive knowledge of target words.

For further research, the following three points should be addressed. First, few studies have measured both receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. Second, not many studies have compared the effects of receptive retrieval with those of productive retrieval although Nation (2013) noted these two types of retrieval. Third, to my knowledge, no research has been conducted to explore the relative effectiveness of either retrieval type on second language vocabulary in a controlled situation where time and the number of retrieval opportunities are equal.

1.3 Previous Studies comparing receptive and productive vocabulary learning There are many language activities involving each type of retrieval, receptive and

productive. Receptive learning or input-based learning activities are activities involving receptive retrieval, while productive learning or output-based learning activities are activities involving productive retrieval. Many researchers have compared the effects of receptive learning and productive learning.

In L2 vocabulary learning, the direction of learning pairs of first language (L1) words and L2 words has been researched (Griffin & Harley, 1996; Stoddard, 1929; Waring, 1997; Webb, 2009). Identifying L1 words cued with L2 words is called a receptive task, while identifying L2 words cued with L1 words is called a productive task. These four studies reported that when words were learned receptively, the participants performed better on receptive vocabulary knowledge tests. Similarly, when under productive learning conditions, participants scored better on productive vocabulary knowledge tests. Also, the difference between receptive learning and productive learning has been researched in L2 learning activities. Some reported that the words learned through receptive tasks were remembered better than those learned through productive tasks (Shintani, 2011; Webb, 2005, Exp. 1) while some reported the opposite (Ellis & He, 1999, Webb, 2005, Exp. 2; de la Fuente, 2002). To date, no clear conclusion has been reached.

Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP), suggested by Morris, Bransford, and Franks (1977), assumes that the achievement of tests depends on the degree of the overlap between the process involved in learning and the process involved in testing (e.g., Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). This model can also be applied to the Testing Effect. It explains that when a participant uses cognitive processing on an interphase test, this effects positively on the achievement of one’s final test (e.g., Roediger & Karpicke,

141140

YANAGISAWA Akifumi

2006b). This model assumes that the receptive retrieval condition outperforms the productive retrieval condition for receptive vocabulary knowledge and vice versa. Lightbown (2008) summarizes the model of TAP in the context of language learning, stating that “comprehension practice may improve comprehension, while speaking practice is necessary to improve speaking” (pp. 39-40). However, some studies do not support TAP (Shintani, 2011; Webb, 2005, Exp. 1, Exp. 2, Ellis & He, 1999) while others do (Griffin & Harley, 1996; Stoddard, 1929; Waring, 1997; Webb, 2009). The relationship between the directions of learning and the results of learning has not yet been clearly revealed. Therefore, in the present study, receptive learning and productive learning were compared by focusing only on retrieval in a controlled situation where time and the number of retrieval opportunities were equal.

2. Method

2.1 Research Questions In order to examine the effects of learning direction on receptive and productive

vocabulary knowledge, the following four research questions (RQ) were set:

RQ1: Is the receptive retrieval condition more effective than the control condition on the receptive vocabulary knowledge test?

RQ2: Is the receptive retrieval condition more effective than the control condition on productive vocabulary knowledge test?

RQ3: Is the receptive retrieval condition more effective than the productive retrieval condition on the receptive vocabulary knowledge test?

RQ4: Is the productive retrieval condition more effective than the receptive retrieval condition on the productive vocabulary knowledge test?

Based on the assumption that retrieval of target items strengthens the link between the target words and illustrations (Carrier & Pashler, 1992; Kang et al., 2013; Nation, 2013), TAP (Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977) predicts that the receptive retrieval condition should be more effective than the control condition on the receptive vocabulary knowledge test because the receptive retrieval condition requires the participants to use similar cognitive processes as the receptive vocabulary knowledge test.

Based on the assumed strength of the word-illustration link and the hypothesis that language can be acquired successfully with sufficient comprehensible input even without opportunities of output (e.g., Krashen, 1985), the receptive retrieval condition should also be more effective than the control condition on the productive vocabulary knowledge test.

In addition, the receptive retrieval condition is also likely to outperform the

142

The Effects of Receptive and Productive Word Retrieval Practice on Second Language Vocabulary Learning

productive retrieval condition on the receptive vocabulary test. This can be anticipated through TAP, given the fact that the receptive retrieval condition is significantly more similar to the receptive vocabulary knowledge test than to the productive retrieval condition. This notion is supported by several prior studies (Griffin & Harley, 1996; Stoddard, 1929; Waring, 1997; Webb, 2005, Exp. 1, 2009). At the same time, however, it is possible that the present study does not support this hypothesis. Several prior studies reported that productive tasks did have more positive effects on the vocabulary learning than receptive tasks (Ellis & He, 1999; Webb, 2005, Exp. 2; de la Fuente, 2002). Webb (2005) reported that his Experiment 1, in which the completion time was consistent for each condition, showed the advantage of the receptive language task activity over the productive task. However, the productive task outperformed the receptive task in his Experiment 2, in which the time was not controlled. Webb suggested that one of the reasons for the productive condition advantage was the extended time which participants spent on learning in that condition. The present study controlled time for both conditions.

Finally, TAP suggests that the productive retrieval condition will outperform the receptive retrieval condition on the productive vocabulary test. However, while some prior studies supported this (Griffin & Harley, 1996; Stoddard, 1929; Waring, 1997; Webb, 2005, Exp. 2, 2009), others did not (Shintani, 2011; Webb, 2005, Exp. 1). Shintani (2011) stated that the advantage of the input-based instruction condition might be because input-based instruction provided richer opportunities for language learning. It is possible that participants had more opportunities to retrieve target words in the input-based instruction condition because receptive retrieval is generally easier than productive retrieval. In the present study, the quantity of opportunities for retrieval has been controlled, thereby the effectiveness of the receptive retrieval itself can be seen more clearly.

2.2 Participants Data from 18 undergraduate students, 8 males and 10 females, at a Japanese

university were analyzed. Their average age was 21.15 years. Only four of them were majoring in English education, but they had studied English for an average of 10.27 years, with the minimum being 7 years. Thirteen of them reported passing the EIKEN, an English-proficiency test in Japan: one participant passed Grade Pre-1; three, Grade 2; three, Grade Pre-2; four, Grade 3; and two, Grade 4. The experiment was conducted in June 2015.

2.3 Experimental Design

The present study was a within-participants design and each participant received

143142

YANAGISAWA Akifumi

input of 24 target words: 8 words in the receptive retrieval condition, 8 words in the productive retrieval condition, and 8 words in the control condition. The participants took the immediate posttests after practicing the target words and took the delayed posttests one week after treatment. The order of the tests and the practice conditions for each word were counterbalanced. Half of the participants took the receptive vocabulary knowledge test first and half took the productive vocabulary knowledge test first. The order of the tests was the same for each participant for the immediate and delayed posttests.

2.4 Procedure

The participants took the experiment individually, with only the experimenter in the room. They were given an explanation about the experiment with the informed consent, which all participants signed. After the procedure was explained, they practiced the three learning conditions: the receptive retrieval, the productive retrieval, and the control condition, which were used in the training phases explained in detail below.

The experiment consisted of three cycles composed of an initial presentation phase and a training phase. In each initial presentation phase, participants heard 8 randomly selected target words and simultaneously saw the associated illustration. They were asked to remember the target words represented by the illustrations. The training phase itself consisted of 12 repetitions of the same 8 target words but appearing in random order each time. Since participants completed three cycles, with 8 different target words in each cycle, they were asked to learn 24 target words. The number of words and allotted time for learning each word paralleled the work of Kang et al. (2013).

In the training phase’s receptive retrieval condition, each target word was played followed by the instruction, “Please recall the meaning of the word” (in Japanese) which appeared on the laptop screen. Three seconds later, the corresponding illustration was presented for 1 second. The participants were then asked to recall the illustration or the meaning of the target word in 3 seconds before the illustration appeared. The participants were then asked to write "O" on a recording sheet if the illustration was same as they recalled, and to write "X" if they had failed to recall it correctly. In its productive retrieval condition, first, each illustration and the instruction, “Please say the name of this illustration” (in Japanese) were shown simultaneously for 4 seconds. The participants were asked to recall the corresponding target word and say it aloud. Three seconds later, the target word was played. In its control condition, the instruction, “Please repeat the words read” (in Japanese) and the illustration were shown to the participants while the recorded target word played simultaneously. The illustration appeared for 4 seconds, and the participants were directed to repeat the target words once.

144

The Effects of Receptive and Productive Word Retrieval Practice on Second Language Vocabulary Learning

At the end of each target word presentation in three conditions, a black square was displayed instead of an illustration for 2 seconds until the next word started. Each retrieval condition gave 3 seconds for retrieval and 1 second for learning, while the control condition gave a full 4 seconds for learning every time. After the training phase, the participants answered easy math questions orally for 1 minute in order to attenuate the recency effect. Then, the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge tests were used as the immediate posttest. The same tests were administered 1 week later, as the delayed posttest. The target words were presented with a laptop using an original application programed using the Microsoft Visual Studio on Windows 7. 2.5 Target words

Twenty-four English pseudo-words created by an application named Wuggy (Keuleers & Brysbaert, 2010) were used as target words: leat, zop, nend, noke, coft, ham-my, trock, mirl, pro-vy, tup-ple, kich, o-sat-ion, vopse, ree-sin, ad-ste, u-nalk, pea-bon, for-oofs, ba-met-a, yap-pow, se-si-up, do-cat-tic, jes-a-nern, and fob-bi-tal. Twenty-four illustrations were associated, respectively, with the target words listed above: strawberry, melon, banana, grapes, peach, carrot, pumpkin, eggplant, wild boar, hippopotamus, lion, monkey, penguin, pig, tiger, milk cow, chair, cutter, pencil, scissors, clock, nail clipper, car, and knife. These illustrations were downloaded from the free illustration website “Irasutoya” (http://www.irasutoya.com). The target words were read by an English teacher at a Japanese university and recorded. The twenty-four target words were arranged in the descending order of their Average Orthographic Levenshtein Distance, which is used as a good indicator of Neighborhood size, how dense pseudo-words are, and how many actual words similar to the pseudo-words exist (Keuleers & Brysbaert, 2010). The pseudo-words were then divided into six groups, with two groups allocated to each of the three learning conditions. The conditions were rotated one by one according to the participants’ group number. There are other ways to counterbalance the learning condition for each target word. For example, all target words can be divided into only three groups, allocating one group to each of the three conditions. Half of the participants take the receptive vocabulary knowledge tests first, and the other half take the productive vocabulary knowledge tests first. In the present experiment, the counterbalancing design as first stated was applied since the effects of testing order were not a focus of this study.

2.6 Measurements Two measurements were prepared: a receptive vocabulary knowledge test and a

productive vocabulary knowledge test.

145144

YANAGISAWA Akifumi

For the receptive vocabulary tests, the participants were asked to write the corresponding L1 (Japanese) words on the test papers while listening to the target words played one by one. Drawing the matching illustration was also allowed if the participants could not provide the L1 words. Clearly identifiable and correct drawings were graded as correct answers.

For the productive vocabulary tests, the participants were asked to name the illustrations that appeared on the screen one by one. The participants’responses were recorded by a digital voice recorder and scored by the experimenter. Mispronunciations which were regarded simply as a Japanese accent or small phonemic error were graded as correct answers.

Correct answers received 1 point; wrong answers, 0 points. The same tests were used as the immediate and delayed posttests, and the order of the target words was randomized each time.

3. Results and Analysis

Table 1 and Table 2 show the descriptive statistics for the productive and receptive vocabulary tests, respectively.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge (N = 18)

Immediate Posttest Delayed Posttest

n M SD M SD

Control Condition 18 5.944 0.998 4.444 1.916

Productive Retrieval Condition 18 7.000 1.283 6.111 1.778

Receptive Retrieval Condition 18 6.833 0.923 5.444 1.247

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Productive Vocabulary Knowledge (N = 18)

Immediate Posttest Delayed Posttest

n M SD M SD

Control Condition 18 3.444 1.885 3.166 2.148

Productive Retrieval Condition 18 5.722 1.903 4.444 2.727

Receptive Retrieval Condition 18 3.111 1.875 2.944 2.154

146

The Effects of Receptive and Productive Word Retrieval Practice on Second Language Vocabulary Learning

The data was subjected to a 2×3 repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) of within-participants factorial design for each receptive vocabulary knowledge test and productive vocabulary knowledge test, separately. The first factor was the timing of testing (Immediate Posttest vs. Delayed Posttest), and the second three factors were the conditions in which the target words were learned (receptive retrieval condition vs. productive retrieval condition vs. control condition).

As for the data from the receptive vocabulary knowledge tests, Mauchly’s test of sphericity did not show any violation. The ANOVA for receptive vocabulary knowledge revealed significant effects for type of learning condition, F(2, 34) = 11.910, p = .000,

= .147, and for testing timing, F(2, 34) = 24.382, p = .000, = .174, at the 1% standard. No significant interaction was found, F(2, 34) = 1.227, p = .305, = .000. The post hoc test using the Holm-Bonferroni method revealed that the productive retrieval condition was significantly more effective than the control condition, t(17) = 4.467, p = .000, effect size d = 0.83, and that the receptive retrieval condition was significantly higher than the control condition, t(17) = 3.307, p = .004, effect size d = 0.63. No significant difference between the receptive retrieval condition and the productive retrieval condition was observed, t(17) = 1.567, p = .1355, effect size d = 0.29.

As for the data from the productive vocabulary knowledge tests, Mauchly’s test of sphericity suggested that the global sphericity assumption was violated at the 1% standard, Approximate Chi Square (14) = 27.793, p = .016. Thus, an adjusted degree of freedom statistic provided by the Greenhouse-Geisser correctional formula was applied to the calculation of the repeated measured ANOVA.

The ANOVA for productive vocabulary knowledge test revealed a significant interaction between learning condition and test timing, F(1.97, 33.52) = 5.750, p = .007,

= .014, at the 1% standard. Testing the simple main effect of the learning conditions revealed significant effects on the immediate posttest, F(1.88, 31.99) = 18.185, p = .000,

= .285, and on the delayed posttest, F(1.93, 32.73) = 5.115, p = .012, = .076. To investigate the interaction between type of learning condition and test timing, the data were subjected to a post hoc test using the Holm-Bonferroni method.

On the immediate posttest, the productive retrieval condition scored significantly higher than the control condition, t(17) = 4.357, p = .000, effect size d = 1.20, and scored higher than the receptive retrieval condition, t(17) = 6.199, p = .000, effect size d = 1.38. No significant differences between the receptive retrieval condition and the productive retrieval condition were observed, t(17) = 0.717, p = .48, effect size d = 0.18.

On the delayed posttest, the productive retrieval condition scored significantly higher than the receptive retrieval condition, t(17) = 3.170, p = .005, effect size d = 0.61,

147146

YANAGISAWA Akifumi

whereas no significant difference was observed between productive retrieval and the control condition, t(17) = 2.310, p = .033, effect size d = 0.52, and between the receptive retrieval condition and the control condition, t(17) = 0.454, p = .655, effect size d = 0.10.

The analysis of simple effect comparison of test timing revealed that there were no significant differences in the control condition, F(2, 34) = 0.855, p = .368, = .005, and the receptive retrieval condition, F(2, 34) = 0.220, p = .644, = .001, whereas productive retrieval showed a significant decrease from the immediate posttest to the delayed posttest, F(2, 34) = 12.612, p = .002, = .072.

4. Discussion

I will discuss the results according to the four RQs. First, RQ1 asked whether the receptive retrieval condition was more effective than the control condition on the receptive vocabulary test. The current study answered yes to this. The retrieval practice may have strengthened the link between the illustration and the target words as suggested by the Retrieval Hypothesis.

Second, RQ2 addressed whether the receptive retrieval condition was more effective than the control condition on the productive vocabulary test. The present study did not find this to be true. One possible explanation is that the receptive retrieval condition required the participants to only remember the meaning of the target words by hearing them played. Therefore, it was not necessary for them to remember the complete form of each target word, which could have led to the failure to remember the productive vocabulary knowledge of the target words. The few words, which were retained from the immediate posttest to the delayed posttest, can be explained by their length. Only short target words appeared to be learned quickly and maintained whereas other target words failed to be learned. Acquiring the productive knowledge of words through receptive retrieval seems relatively difficult for some words.

Third, RQ3 asked whether the receptive retrieval condition was more effective than the productive retrieval condition on the receptive vocabulary knowledge test. The results of this study refuted this. There was no significant difference between the two conditions. This may be because the participants had to remember the meanings as cues for the target words in addition to the target words in the productive retrieval condition. Processing the illustrations to retrieve the forms of the target words may have strengthened the links between the meanings and the forms. Because of this, the productive retrieval condition may have achieved as much as the receptive retrieval condition did on the receptive vocabulary knowledge test.

148

The Effects of Receptive and Productive Word Retrieval Practice on Second Language Vocabulary Learning

The results of the present study are different from those of several prior studies which reported the advantage of receptive learning on receptive vocabulary knowledge tests (Griffin & Harley, 1996; Stoddard, 1929; Waring, 1997; Webb, 2005, Exp. 1, 2009). This might be explained by the difference in the amount of time the participants were allowed to practice. In Stoddard’s (1929) experiment, for instance, the participants had 20 minutes to study 50 words, or twenty-four seconds per word. Griffin and Harley’s study (1996) provided 8 minutes for 20 words, also twenty-four seconds per word. Webb (2009) provided 6 minutes for 10 words, or thirty-six seconds per word. In contrast, in the present study, the participants spent approximately 30 minutes on learning the target words. In the training phase, they were granted 7 seconds of practice 12 times per target word, which added up to 84 seconds per word. Webb (2005) reported that the receptive task (reading task) was more effective than the productive task (writing task) when the same amount of time was spent on each task, whereas the productive task was more effective than the receptive task when the participants spent as much time as they needed for completing each task. Hence, it is assumed that the previous studies did not provide enough time and opportunities for participants to learn target words in the productive tasks. In the current study, the participants may have had enough time and opportunities to practice in the productive learning condition. This might have led to the advantage of productive retrieval on both the receptive vocabulary knowledge tests as well as the productive vocabulary knowledge tests, even when time and the number of retrievals were controlled and equal for every condition in the present study.

Furthermore, the simplicity of meanings represented by the illustrations might have effected positively. In the productive retrieval condition, even though the participants had to remember the meanings of the target words in addition to the forms, they may have been able to focus on both the meanings and the forms simultaneously because those meanings were familiar to them.

Lastly, RQ4 inquired whether the productive retrieval condition was more effective than the receptive retrieval condition on the productive vocabulary knowledge test. The results were encouraging as hypothesized. It is possible that the productive retrieval condition required participants to remember the whole forms of target words in addition to the meanings, whereas the receptive retrieval condition only required the participants to focus on as much of the forms as necessary to recall their meaning.

In the present study, the model of TAP was supported only in RQ1 and RQ4, and was not supported in RQ3. Therefore, it is assumed that TAP should not be applied to the effects of retrieval practice on the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge of L2 vocabulary learning without further research. It can be pointed out that ease of processing

149148

YANAGISAWA Akifumi

the target words’meanings, as described under RQ3 above, might have caused the advantage of the productive retrieval condition over the receptive retrieval condition. Therefore, if the participants had had to study more difficult target words, such as L2 vocabulary containing unfamiliar concepts, the results might have been different.

5. Conclusion

This study has shown that the receptive retrieval condition was effective on the receptive vocabulary knowledge test, whereas it was not as effective on the productive vocabulary knowledge test. The productive retrieval condition was shown to be effective on both the receptive and productive vocabulary tests.

The present study has several limitations. First, the validity of the receptive vocabulary test used in this study is questionable to some extent because of the use of L1 (Japanese). Although using L2 in measuring receptive vocabulary knowledge is widely used in L2 vocabulary acquisition research (e.g., Barcroft, 2007; de la Fuente, 2002) and has merit (e.g., Nation, 2013), there still is room to improve the validity of the tests. Further discussion and development of the measurements for receptive knowledge is recommended.

In addition, because two types of tests were taken repeatedly by all participants, there is a possibility that the first tests had an effect on the later tests. In future research, using fewer tests in experiments is suggested. Finally, developing an experiment which can reveal the effects of word difficulty or times of retrieval practice on vocabulary learning may be helpful. The present study did not consider the difficulty of each type of retrieval. There is a possibility of different outcomes when conditions such as amount of time, number of retrieval opportunities, and difficulty of retrieval items are changed.

This study can make two pedagogical suggestions. First, it was found that the receptive retrieval facilitates the learning of receptive vocabulary knowledge. A comparison with the control condition revealed that the receptive retrieval was more effective than the simple repetition of the words. Telling stories in L2 and playing games which require learners to retrieve the meaning of words are suggested for the L2 classroom in order to foster learners’ receptive vocabulary.

Second, the present study found that productive retrieval facilitates the learning of both receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. Furthermore, the results suggest that productive retrieval was more effective than receptive retrieval in order to learn the productive knowledge of vocabulary. To acquire productive knowledge of vocabulary efficiently, games and activities involving productive retrieval may be preferable.

150

The Effects of Receptive and Productive Word Retrieval Practice on Second Language Vocabulary Learning

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my greatest appreciation to Professor Sakai Hideki, who taught me many things with so much passion. I feel honored to be his student. Also, I would like to thank Professor Shimada Hideaki, who shared his knowledge about research design and gave me so much helpful advice; to Ms. Colleen Dalton, who assisted me in making the pseudo-words used in the experiment and proofread my English many times; and to Ms. Kaitlyn Nero, without whose help and encouragement I could not have completed this paper. Finally, I would like to thank the referees who took the time to suggest specific areas in my paper which I could refine.

References

Barcroft, J. (2007). Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 57, 35-56.

Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20, 633-642.

de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.

Dempster, F. N. (1996). Distributing and managing the conditions of encoding and practice. In E. L. Bjork, & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 317-344). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.

Griffin, G. F., & Harley, T. A. (1996). List learning of second language vocabulary. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 443–460.

Kang, S. H., Gollan, T. H., & Pashler, H. (2013). Don’t just repeat after me: Retrieval practice is better than imitation for foreign vocabulary learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1259-1265.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151-162.

Kawaii free sozai irasutoya (Cute free illustration materials). (n.d.). Retrieved August 16, 2015, from http://www.irasutoya.com.

Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627-633.

151150

YANAGISAWA Akifumi

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.

Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21, 202-226.

Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48, 365-391.

Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. Understanding Second Language Process, 27-44.

Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533.

Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roediger, H. L., & Guynn, M. J. (1996). Retrieval processes. In E. L. Bjork, & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 197-236). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181-210.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). Test-enhanced learning taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249-255.

Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137-158.

Stoddard, G. D. (1929). An experiment in verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 20, 452-457.

Waring, R. (1997). A study of receptive and productive learning from word cards. Studies in Foreign Languages and Literature, 21, 94-114.

Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33-52.

Webb, S. (2009). The effects of receptive and productive learning of word pairs on vocabulary knowledge. RELC Journal, 40, 360-376.

152

The Effects of Receptive and Productive Word Retrieval Practice on Second Language Vocabulary Learning