Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:15:17.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of enhanced lexical retrieval on second language writing: A classroom experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2004

PATRICK SNELLINGS ,
AMOS VAN GELDEREN  and
KEES DE GLOPPER
PATRICK SNELLINGS
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
AMOS VAN GELDEREN
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
KEES DE GLOPPER
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lexical retrieval is an essential subprocess in language production, and its efficiency is crucial for writing. To improve writing quality in a second language, we developed an experimental, computerized training for improving fluency of lexical retrieval in a classroom setting, applying techniques previously restricted to laboratory use. In a counterbalanced design with randomized assignment, each of two groups was trained on a different set of words for productive use. A previous study showed that students in both groups attained greater fluency of lexical retrieval on the trained word set in comparison to students who were not trained on that word set. The current study provides evidence that this enhanced fluency transferred to narrative writing, as students in both groups used the trained words more often in narrative texts. In addition, one of the groups showed significant improvement in their expression of essential content elements. However, no significant differences were found on global quality ratings. The results are discussed in the context of theories of limited processing capacity during text production. We also consider the implications of these results for language instruction.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 175 - 200
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alamargot D., & Chanquoy L. 2001 Studies in writing: Vol. 9. Through the models of writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Anderson J. R. 2000 Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York: Worth.
Blok H. 1986 Essay rating by the comparison method. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 11, 169– 176.Google Scholar
Brown J. S., McDonald J. L., Brown T. L., & Carr T. H. 1988 Adapting to processing demands in discourse production: The case of handwriting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 45– 59.Google Scholar
Chenoweth N. A., & Hayes J. R. 2001 Fluency in writing. Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80– 98.Google Scholar
COBUILD. 2000 Bank of English corpus. Retrieved from http://titania.cobuild.collins.co.uk/about.html.
Cohen J. 1988 Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Groot A. M. B., Dannenburg L., & Van Hell J. G. 1994 Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600– 629.Google Scholar
DeKeyser R. 2001 Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125– 151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis N. C. 1995 The psychology of foreign language vocabulary acquisition: Implications for CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8, 103– 128.Google Scholar
Favreau M., & Segalowitz N. 1983 Automatic and controlled processes in the first- and second-language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 11, 565– 574.Google Scholar
Flower L. S., & Hayes J. R. 1980 The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31– 50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gatbonton E., & Segalowitz N. 1988 Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 473– 492.Google Scholar
Glynn S. M., Britton B. K., Muth D., & Dugan N. 1982 Writing and revising persuasive documents: Cognitive demands. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 557– 567.Google Scholar
Hayes J. R. 1996 A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1– 27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes J. R., & Flower L. S. 1980 Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3– 30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heaton J. B. 1981 Composition through pictures (19th ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Henriksen B. 1999 Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303– 318.Google Scholar
Just M. A., & Carpenter P. A. 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122– 149.Google Scholar
Kellogg R. T. 1994 The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kellogg R. T. 1996 A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57– 71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kellogg R. T. 1999 Components of working memory in text production. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Esperet (Series Eds.) & M. Torrance & G. C. Jeffery (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 3. The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory in text production (pp. 43– 61). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Koda K. 1996 L2 word recognition research: A critical review. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 450– 460.Google Scholar
Kroll J. F., & Stewart E. 1994 Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149– 174.Google Scholar
Lea J., & Levy C. M. 1999 Working memory as a resource in the writing process. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Esperet (Series Eds.) & M. Torrance & G. C. Jeffery (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 3. The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory in text production (pp. 63– 82). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Levelt W. J. M. 1989 Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt W. J. M., Roelofs A., & Meyer A. S. 1998 A theory of lexical access in speech production. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Levelt W. J. M., Roelofs A., & Meyer A. S. 1999 A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1– 38.Google Scholar
McCutchen D. 1996 A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299– 325.Google Scholar
McCutchen D., Covill A., Hoyne S. H., & Mildes K. 1994 Individual differences in writing: Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 256– 266.Google Scholar
Meara P. 1996 The vocabulary knowledge framework. Vocabulary Acquisition Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.swan.ac.uk/cals/calsres/vlibrary/pm96d.htm.
Penningroth S. L., & Rosenberg S. 1995 Effects of a high information processing load on the writing process and the story written. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 189– 210.Google Scholar
Perfetti C. A. 1985 Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Potter M. C., So K. F., von Eckardt B., & Feldman L. B. 1984 Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23– 38.Google Scholar
Ransdell S., & Levy C. M. 1996 Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 93– 105). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scardamalia M., Bereiter C., & Goelman H. 1982 The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know (pp. 173– 210). New York: Academic Press.
Schneider W., & Shiffrin R. M. 1977 Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1– 66.Google Scholar
Schoonen R., Van Gelderen A., Glopper K. d., Hulstijn J., Snellings P., Simis A., & Stevenson M. 2002 Linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and retrieval speed in L1, L2 and EFL writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 11. New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 101– 122). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Schoonen R., Van Gelderen A., De Glopper K., Hulstijn J., Simis A., Snellings P., & Stevenson M. 2003 First language and second language writing; the role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53, 165– 202.Google Scholar
Segalowitz N., & Gatbonton E. 1995 Automaticity and lexical skills in second language fluency: Implications for computer assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8, 129– 149.Google Scholar
Snellings P., Van Gelderen A., & De Glopper K. 2002 Lexical retrieval: An aspect of fluent second language production that can be enhanced. Language Learning, 52, 723– 754.Google Scholar
Stein N. L., & Trabasso T. 1982 What's in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 213– 267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stevens J. 1996 Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Torrance M., & Jeffery G. 1999 Writing processes and cognitive demands. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Esperet (Series Eds.) & M. Torrance & G. C. Jeffery (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 3. The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory in text production (pp. 1– 11). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Van Gelderen A. 1997 Elementary students' skills in revising: Integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis. Written Communication, 14, 360– 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen A., & Oostdam R. 2004 Revision of form and meaning in learning to write comprehensible text. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & L. Allal, L. Chanquoi, P. Largy, & Y. Rouiller (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 13. Revision of written language: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 103– 123). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Weinert R. 1995 The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16, 180– 205.Google Scholar
Zimmerman R. 2000 L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10, 73– 99.Google Scholar