Semantic Feature Training as a Means to Improve Productive L2 Vocabulary Knowledge - Katherine Kerschen The Pennsylvania State University ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Semantic Feature Training as a Means
to Improve Productive L2 Vocabulary
Knowledge
Katherine Kerschen
The Pennsylvania State University
Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures
Graduate Exhibition | March 24-26, 2021
1The Learning Problem:
• Vocabulary knowledge is a crucial component of the
ability to communicate in the second language (L2)
• However, classroom L2 learners struggle to acquire
sufficient vocabulary, particularly productive knowledge
of vocabulary (Schmitt, 2008; Webb, 2008)
Receptive knowledge = the ability to recognize a word’s form
and/or meaning
Productive knowledge = the ability to recall a word’s form and/or
meaning (Laufer & Goldstein, 2004)
2Means of Improving Lexical Retrieval
• Repeated retrieval practice
• Semantic Feature Analysis
3Repeated Retrieval Practice
• Research in cognitive psychology on the “testing effect”
(Roediger & Karpicke, 2006) has shown that repeated testing
(retrieving / recalling the target information) leads to better
long-term retention than passive re-exposure/re-studying
• The testing effect is well-documented for L2 vocabulary learning
(e.g., Barcroft, 2007; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008; Kang et al.,
2013; Nakata, 2017)
4Semantic Feature Analysis
• Treatment technique used with persons with aphasia
• Targets anomia, which is a lexical retrieval deficit
5SFA Treatment
1. Picture is placed in the center of
the chart, patient names the
target word
2. Patient generates at least 1
feature for each of the 6
descriptor categories
3. Patient reads out all the
features (with the item name)
4. Patient is prompted to name
the target item again
Reproduced from Boyle (2010, p. 413) 6The Pilot Study
7Research Questions
1. What impact does semantic feature analysis (SFA)
training have on the development of productive L2
vocabulary knowledge?
2. What impact does Retrieval-and-Output
(“Flashcard”) training have on the development of
productive L2 vocabulary knowledge?
3. How does the impact of semantic feature training
compare to the impact of retrieval and output
practice?
8Participants
Subject Age Gender Years Reading Spelling Writing Speaking Listening
German
SFA
126854 19 m 2 6 6 5 4 6
Training
126832 20 m 1 5 3 5 3 3
126828 21 f 1 5 4 5 4 4
126812 18 f 6.5 6 6 6 5 5
126321 19 f 2 3 3 4 2 3
126320 18 f 4.5 6 6 6 5 5
Flashcard
126839 19 m 2 5 5 5 4 4
Training
126836 19 f 1 7 6 7 5 6
126387 18 m 6 4 5 2 2 3
126372 20 m 4.5 6 6 6 7 6
Average 19.1 3 5.3 5 5.1 4.1 4.5 9Materials
• Target items: 12 imageable (concrete) German nouns from the
category Haus und Wohnen (House and Living)
Target items should be known receptively but NOT productively
Final set of 12 items chosen based on results of a norming study conducted
in February 2020
der Rasenmäher Lawn mower das Dach Roof
die Schubkarre Wheelbarrow die Treppe Stairs
der Briefkasten Mailbox die Spüle Sink
der Mülleimer Trash can die Badewanne Bathtub
der Staubsauger Vacuum die Zahnbürste Toothbrush
das Bügelbrett Ironing board der Kamm Comb
10Trainings
Semantic Feature Analysis “Flashcard”
• Used SFA charts • 4 rounds of (written) object
naming
• Name the object in the center of
the chart • 3 rounds of sentence writing
• Write 6 semantic feature
descriptors about the object
11Outcome Measures
• Word-picture-matching (recognition of meaning)
• Picture naming (production of form)
• Picture description (use in context)
12Picture Recognition
• Select which of the four pictures corresponds to the German word
die Schubkarre
13Picture Naming
• Name the object (in German)
14Picture Description In this task you will see a picture scene
which contains multiple objects. Your task
is to describe the scene in German. Imagine
you're describing the picture to someone
who can't see it, so try to talk about as
many details as possible.
15• Outcome measures Timeline
Pretest • LBQ
• Proficiency Test
• Training Instructions
1 week Training • Word Review activity
• Main training activity
• Outcome measures
1 day Posttest • Debriefing
Delayed • Outcome measures
3 weeks • Debriefing
posttest
16Preliminary Results
17Picture Recognition
13
12
11
10
9
Number of Words
8
7
Testing Time
pre
6
post
5
4 dpt
3
2
1
0
126828 126832 126321 126854 126812 126320 126387 126372 126836 126839
SFA Training Flashcard Training
18Picture Naming
13
12
11
10
9
Number of words
8
Testing Time
7
pre
6
post
5
4 dpt
3
2
1
0
126828 126832 126321 126854 126812 126320 126387 126372 126836 126839
SFA Training Flashcard Training
19Picture Description
24
22
20
Number of words Produced
18
16
14 Testing Time
12 pre
10 post
8 dpt
6
4
2
0
126828 126832 126321 126854 126812 126320 126387 126372 126836 126839
SFA Training Flashcard Training
20Sample Productions:
• Participant 126839 (DPT, Flashcard Group):
Ah ok. Um. Der Stuhl ist naechste uh der Muelleimer. Die Badewanne ist
unter das Bild. Die Staubsauger ist hinter I think that means behind. Um.
Das Buegelbrett. Und die Briefkasten ist hinten die Schubkarre.
• Participant 126812 (DPT, SFA Group):
Ick sehe ein Bett und es ist ueber die Treppe. Und unter die Treppe ist den
Staubsaeuger und unter das Staubsaeuger ist den Buegelbrett. Und neben
es ist ein Stuhl. Und ueber den Stuhl ist die Briefkasten und der
Schuckbarre und es gibt eine Hause und es hat ein Dach. Und neben das ist
ein Rasenmaher. Und auf der rechts Seite es gibt ein Bilder auf der wall.
Und neben das es gibt einen Badenwanne. Und neben das ist eine Spuele
und eine Tasse un eine Zaehnbuerste. Und unter das ist ein Muelleimer und
neben das ist einen Kamm.
21Next steps
• Collect data from more participants
• Conduct statistical analyses
• Focus on analyzingthe qualitative differences between
the oral productions on the picture description task
22Sources
• Barcroft, J. (2007). Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary
learning. Language Learning, 57(1), 35-56.
• Boyle, M. (2010). Semantic feature analysis treatment for aphasic word retrieval impairments: What’s in a
name?. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 17(6), 411-422.
• 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(6), 1259-1265.
• Karpicke, J.D., & Roediger, H.L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science,
319(5865), 966-968.
• Kroll, J. F., Van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical
review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 373-381.
• Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer
adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399-436.
• Nakata, T. (2017). Does repeated practice make perfect? The effects of within-session repeated retrieval
on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(4), 653-679.
• Roediger III, H.L., & Karpicke, J.D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications
for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181-210.
• Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3),
329-363.
• Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 30(1), 79-95.
23Thank you!
Contact: krk29@psu.edu
24You can also read
