Elaborative processing and Second Language Vocabulary Learning

A lit Review2011

Introduction

It is a common matter of discussion and research, whether there exists a unique or best approach that would facilitate Second Language Learning and memorization of vocabulary. Several methods have transcended history, such as Loci, or the classic Rote Learning, but the effectiveness of these does not seem to be sufficient to convince scholars.

That’s how Craik and Lockhart’s (1973) levels of processing framework, poses a whole new paradigm for research, distinguishing between superficial processes (those related to word form) and deep processes (semantic manipulation) and further arguing that only deep processing leads to effective long-term learning. The levels of processing framework influenced the work of scholars like Schmeck (1977) on the Inventory of Learning Strategies, which served as the foundation for curricular projects and paradigms across the globe, in countries such as Chile (Trufello, et al. 2001).

However, it’s been more than 30 years since the model was proposed, and it seems appropriate to look at the advances or drawbacks that research have found regarding the effectiveness of elaborative processing. This paper reviews the available literature on the topic of Elaborative Processing and its advantages and limitations for Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition.

Methodology of the literature review

General information was sought consulting the search engine of Google scholar for articles related to “elaborative processing” and “second language learning”, resulting in about 10 pages of citations from which only those published in academic journals were included in this review.

In order to look for specific and more rigorous information, OISE library SUMMON, formerly Scholars Portal system, was consulted specifically in the Psyinfo, PsycARTICLES, PsycCRITIQUES, InfoTrac Psychology eCollection, ChildDevelopment and Adolescent Studies and ERIC databases, using Boolean search with combinations of the terms “elaborative processing” and “vocabulary” or “second language education” between the years 1960 and present. The search resulted on 123 citations, mostly psychometric experimental studies, from which only those related to learning and language learning were included.

Origins of Elaborative Processing

Craik and Lockhart’s (1973) levels of processing framework claims that deeper mental processing leads to better learning. In their work, the psychologists scrutinize the multi-store model (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968)  and criticize it for not properly accounting for issues such as capacity, coding and forgetting. r. In their view, the storage model seems to be inconsistent across different studies and paradigms regarding the mentioned issues, and thus they review contemporary studies regarding memory, focusing on the process on encoding.

Previous studies (Bobrow & Bower, 1969; Rosenberg & Schiller, 1971) had suggested that retention is higher when learning occurs with an orienting task in which learners need to manipulate meaning over word structure. Additionally, the authors recognize the facilitative role of selective attention and meaningfulness in processing and encoding and claim that at deeper levels of thought, people engage in using previously learned structures to enrich the analysis of the stimulus, leading to better retention.

Although Craik and Lockhart’s work constitutes a framework, it has influenced many studies in the following decades, which have actually found empirical evidence of the role of elaborate processing in L2 learning.

For instance, in 1977 Schmeck developed the Inventory of Learning Processes, which was an instrument that categorized students learning strategies; grounded on the Information Processing theories (Craik & Tulvig, 1975) and Levels of Processing Framework (Craik & Lockhart, 1973), and based on a study who analyzed of school students study tactics, 

Later, in 1991, Schmeck et al. published a revised version of the same questionnaire, after testing their validity against 3 other well-known personality tests. The new version, called ILP-R presents 4 dimensions containing sub-scales with categorize learners study strategies into: Reflective processing, Agentic processing and Methodical study.

In the study, Schmeck expanded Craik and Lockhart’s idea of breadth of processing besides depth, and acknowledged elaborative processing as different from deep processing, in which the former involves the self in the analysis of input. As Schmeck et al. point out:

“Elaborative processing involves self-reference, essentially encoding new information in terms of personal metaphor and personal vocabulary; self-expression is a determination to question authority and resolutely express one's own opinions.” (p.350)

Additionally, the study found out that reflective students, that is,  those who make use of deep, elaborating processing or self expression techniques have better school performance than students whose behaviour matches other scale dimensions. Moreover, the correlations suggested that high self-concept is a fairly good predictor of academic success. Thus, high self-concept and reflective processing are two key factors of academic achievement. Consequently, the authors argue that emotional investment and high self- concept are prerequisites for improving cognitive skills.

Evidence and limitations of Elaborative processing in general L1 learning

Several studies highlight the positive effect of elaborative strategies in achieving better and longer-term learning. However, same studies point out the limitations such as, amount of background knowledge and time constrains or pace.

For example, Willoughby et al. (1994) argue that elaborative strategies are most effective when sufficient amount of background knowledge is available. The researchers investigated the role of prior knowledge in elaborative interrogation strategies (e.g. asking “why” questions about the items) and imagery-based or keyword strategies on the assumption that elaborative interrogation strategies activate schemata allowing learners to connect prior knowledge to new information, which in turn, facilitates retrieval (Anderson, 1990; Bower, Black &Turner, 1979; Fiske, 1984; Thorndyke & Yekovich, 1980).

The experimental design study consisted of three experiments that were carried out with undergraduate students, contrasting different strategies and the role of background knowledge in immediate retention.

The study concluded that elaborative strategies are most effective when sufficient amount of background knowledge is available.

In experiment 1, elaborative and imagery-based conditions outperformed control rote learning; however, the first two resulted in equal performance, when prior knowledge and contextual cues were available. Interestingly, when prior knowledge was not available, e.g. learning new unfamiliar animals, neither of the conditions was better than rote learning, but imagery-based strategies surpassed elaborative interrogation.

In experiment 2, participants with high background knowledge engaged in elaborative interrogation condition outperformed other groups and conditions; however, all conditions were same in the low background knowledge group. The study also showed that the more students used background information, during studying the facts in the elaborative interrogation condition, the better they recalled the facts in the post -test. Thus suggesting the important role of background or prior knowledge in linking new information.

Moreover, keyword strategies were also tested and unsurprisingly outperformed all other strategies in immediate recall. However, these findings may be taken cautiously, since contemporary research had proven that the keyword method is more prone to long-term forgetting than other strategies (Thomas and Wang, 1992; 1996).

In other aspect of elaborative processing research, Benjamin & Bjork’s (2000) work about word recognition focusing on accuracy and speed of retrieval under the conditions of rote and elaborative rehearsal in undergraduate students learning familiar and new words in their first language. In the three experiments that composed such study, elaborative rehearsal led to higher and longer-term recall than rote rehearsal condition, under normal speed. Thus concluding that elaborative rehearsal leads to more accurate word recognition. However, the opposite is true under speeded retrieval, where rote rehearsal outperformed elaborative learning. That is to say, it takes longer to remember something that we learn via elaborative rehearsal.

The study also found that longer time of exposure to conditions, i.e. more study time led to better performance both in rote and elaborative rehearsal under normal speed conditions.

According to the researchers, the fact that items learned with elaborative rehearsal suffer under time pressure, might be due to the longer time it takes for learners to access a memory trace that consist of more associations, as Benjamin and Bjork point out:

Creating a unique, perhaps linked, set of associations does indeed foster more likely retrieval, but mentally traversing those links is a time-consuming (and perhaps resource- consuming) process. (p. 646)

Despite of these findings, the constrains found for elaborative rehearsal might not be significant for all activities or disciplines. Since the difference in recall was about a matter of seconds, quick recall might not be equally important for a firefighter making quick decisions in order to save a life than for a second language learner answering a test in the classroom.

In summary, research on learning items in learners’ first language show that elaborative processing does represent an effective learning strategy, nevertheless it must fulfill certain conditions in order to take advantage of it. 

Evidence and limitations of Elaborative processing in L2 acquisition

Significant evidence of the beneficial effect of Elaborative Processing in second language learning was presented in Coomber et al. (1986) whose study showed that composing learning, that is, sentence elaboration, has a significant effect in vocabulary learning, outperforming other types of learning, such as presenting examples or rehearsal.

The experimental design evaluates the condition of learning with examples against learning through composing, i.e. deep level processing (Emig, 1977), and traditional Rote Rehearsal of definitions in learning new lexical items. The experimental items were a set of 10 artificial words; and the participants, college students, were tested shortly after the treatment.

The study found that sentence composing condition outperforms example-based and rehearse techniques, thus supporting elaborative processing theory. However, There were no significant difference between example-based and rehearse techniques.

Coomber’s study is one of the few that refers to “learning” instead of mere “memory” and highlights that elaborative learning is active learning and involves learner’s previous knowledge and decisions (Di Vesta and Peverly, 1984). This is particularly important since it resonates with Willoughby and Craik & Lockhart’s idea of using familiar or prior knowledge to analyze new information.

However, although the authors highlight the role of previous knowledge, this was not measured in the study, since the lexical items used in the study were artificial, thus, it is very difficult to determine the real depth of processing in which participants engaged. At the same time, Coomber et al. failed in providing any information regarding the effect of elaborate processing in long-term retention.

In a later study, Fraser (1999) found that Incidental L2 vocabulary learning is significantly enhanced when learners are formally instructed in the use of learning processing strategies such as, inferring or consulting. Using a quasi experimental design and the Think aloud protocol, Fraser studied ESL francophone university-level participants’ use of Lexical processing strategies when encountering a new word and compared their behavior before and after receiving formal training in the use of lexical processing strategies (LPS). 

The results showed that the most used LPS is inferring. Participants tended to infer more than ignore or consult new words; and tended to ignore less new words after formal LPS instruction, which might suggest a developing lexical awareness mediated by intentional learning. However, the strategy of consulting was more effective (i.e. participants obtained the correct meaning of the word) than inferring, and both strategies improved significantly after LPS training.

Additionally, sense creation inference, i.e. context driven guess, was most frequently used and effective than lexeme activation inference, i.e. a word form activates an L1 or L2 association, like cognates; which gives us a clue of the facilitative role of context in guessing new words meaning. Moreover, Longer retention was achieved when new words were partially familiar and when combination of LPS (inferring and consulting) was used. 

Fraser (1999) also mentions the controversial role of the think aloud protocol, which might have acted as a mean of learning involvement (Ellis, 1994; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). This is particularly interesting if we consider a sociocultural perspective to understand levels of processing, since authors such as Vygotsky (1986) and Swain et al. (2011) recognize the role of “Languaging” as a strategy of gaining conscious control over mental processes.

Consequently, Fraser interprets these finding as evidence of the incremental nature of vocabulary and the effectiveness of elaborate processing in L2 learning, since it engages deep semantic processing and prior knowledge, even in long term.

On that same token, and in a study that resonates with Willoughby’s et al. (1994) on the role of background knowledge, Brancroft (2002) warns us to use elaborative processing primarily with partially known words, since simultaneous processing of new items’ form and meaning would exhaust learners, hindering learning.

Based on his own previous research (2000), which found that sentence composing as an elaborative strategy interferes the learning of new words’ form, Barcroft is skeptical of the positive effects of elaborative processing, and criticizes the way semantic processing has been operationalized in studies advocating the construct. 

In his 2002 research Barcroft uses the TOPRA model to verify and explain why semantic processing inhibits structural processing, thus leading to no recall of new word form. The research consist of an experimental design of 3 groups of university students participants exposed to 3 different conditions: semantic, where participants learn real Spanish words by manipulating meaning; structural and control, where they focus on form; and no processing, where participants were asked to learn a list a words the best way possible, in other words, rote rehearsal.

The research showed that structural condition had a significant effect in learning new words, whereas semantic condition had most significant impact in learning partially known L2 words. Nevertheless, participants who engaged in the semantic condition had great difficulties recalling new words form, thus verifying the inhibitory effect of semantic elaboration on learning new items.

Although Barcroft’s rigorous study provides important considerations about the best time to using elaborate processing, his study fails in giving insight on the long-term effect of the TOPRA model and its predictions regarding L2 vocabulary learning.

Teaching implications regarding Elaborative Processing

As it is shown in the literature review above, and very much like any other teaching strategy, using elaborative processing to teach second language vocabulary seem potentially beneficial and effective in the long term, although at the same time complex and full of consideration that must carefully taken into account. In the following section, I will collect all the insights we gained from the studies on Elaborative Processing and review the teaching implications these pose for different aspects of the teaching labour.

Activities and tasks

It is key to set clear goals in vocabulary teaching in order to choose the appropriate focus (semantic or structural) and choose the corresponding assessment.

Educators must keep in mind that learners have a limited capacity of processing during tasks (Barcroft, 2002), therefore, tasks must be carefully chosen. It is important to pay attention to whether tasks are relevant and appropriate to our goal or focus. As Barcroft argues, teacher must let learners focus their attention of lexemes during the first encounters with a new word, in order to avoid processing exhaust. Activities and tasks related to word form are most appropriate for learning new items. On further encounters with the same lexical item, more semantic level processing is beneficial. For example, sentence composing provides learners with more opportunities for deep level processing, and therefore more effective (short-term) learning (Coomber, 1986).

Context and prior knowledge

Since elaborative processing is very dependent on background or prior knowledge (Barcroft, 2002; Willoughby et al., 1994), context is key in activating schemata and thus facilitating elaborative processing. In semantic level processing, learners must engage in lexical item analysis that require the use of previous experiences and knowledge; therefore, learning tasks should make learners build connections and make use of all their knowledge and experiences. However, in those situations where prior knowledge is limited, strategies such as rote learning and imagery-based ones might result more effective in first encounters with lexical items or beginner students with an incipient lexicon.

Time to learn and assess

When using elaborative processing, teachers must allocate time to learn. Since, as explained by Benjamin and Bjork (2000) elaborative processing is very time consuming and mentally demanding.

Additionally, teachers must be aware that learners might need more time to retrieve items as well. This means, for example, that if we test something they learned through elaborative rehearsal, they might need more time to come up with the correct answer. Therefore, it is important to allocate thinking time when testing.

Enhancing long-term learning

Due to the incremental nature of vocabulary and in order to move from lexeme level processing to lemma or semantic level processing, teachers need to constantly recycle lexical items. This way, in first encounters with a word, learners develop the core knowledge and in further encounters eventually they will develop more encyclopaedic knowledge, moving in size and depth of vocabulary learning (Schmitt, 2000).

The role of creativity

Following Schmeck’s (1991) suggestions, educators should encourage learners to appropriate information; in other words, involving themselves in the process of learning new items. One way to achieve this might be to have learners compose texts in which they merge their own experiences or expectations with new information, for instance, by composing sentences related to themselves using the new vocabulary, or restating new information with their own words, as in paraphrasing.

Complementing Instruction-based Learning and Incidental Learning

As teachers we are not always able to expose our learners to the ideal amount of vocabulary, nor to provide all the necessary encounters with a word. This is why it is key to complement formal instruction with incidental learning. 

As Fraser (1999) points out, teaching learners some strategies that might help them become more autonomous might open a huge door to learning from the environment. For example, in Foreign Language Learning, where everyday context does not provide enough input, teaching LPS explicitly might enhance incidental learning through reading authentic material or graded texts for pleasure.

Finally, It depends on educators to build up a extensive repertoire of strategies to be able to better address different learners, with different styles, preferences, capacities, background knowledge and experiences.

Conclusion

This paper has reviewed and briefly evaluated  the available literature regarding evidence and limitations of Elaborative Processing in Second Language Vocabulary Learning.

It is clear that the use of Elaborative Processing in Teaching Second Language vocabulary does report benefits, although it is also clear that educators need to be cautious as to when and how to incorporate this strategy in their lessons or teaching material.

Although knowledge about Elaborative Processing Strategies so far might enable educators to use it successfully in teaching, there seems to be more room for further studies that discover the nuances of these strategies and the multiple ways learners can benefit from it.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman

Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). "Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes". In Spence, K.W. & Spence, J.T.. The psychology of learning and motivation (Volume 2). New York: Academic Press. pp. 89–195.

Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language learning, 52(2), 323 - 363

Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2000). On the relationship between recognition speed and accuracy for words rehearsed via rote versus elaborative rehearsal. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 638-648. 

Bobrow, S. & Bower, G. H. (1969). Comprehension and recall of sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 455-461.

Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive psychology, 11, 177-220.

Coomber, J. E.; Ramstad, D. A. and Sheets, D. R. (1986). Elaboration in Vocabulary Learning: A Comparison of Three Rehearsal Methods. Research in the teaching of English, 20(3), 281 - 293

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.

Craik, F. I. M. & Tulving, E. (1975) Depth of processing and retention of words in episodic memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, pp. 268-294.

DiVesta, F.J., & Peverly, S. T. (1984). The effects of encoding variability, processing activity, and rule-examples sequence on the transfer of conceptual rules. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 108-119.

Ellis, N. C. (1994). Consciousness in second language learning: Psychological perspectives on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition. AILA Review, 11, 37–56.

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.

Fraser, C. A. (1999) Lexical Processing Strategy Use And Vocabulary Learning Through Reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 225-241

Fiske, S. T. (1984). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenberg, S. & Schiller, W. J. (1971)  Semantic coding and incidental sentence recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 345-346.

Schmeck, R.R., Ribich, F.D. & Ramanaiah, N. (1977) Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes, Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, pp. 413-431.

Schmeck, R. R., Geisler-Brenstein, G. &  Cercy, S. P. (1991): Self-Concept and Learning: the revised inventory of learning processes, Educational Psychology, 11:3-4, 343-362

Schmitt, N. (2000) Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Swain, M., Kinnear, P., Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: an introduction through narratives. Toronto: multilingual matters.

Thomas, M. H. & Wang, A. Y. (1996). Learning by the keyword mnemonic: looking for long-term benefits. Journal of experimental psychology: applied. 2(4), 330-342.

Thomas, M. H. & Wang, A. Y. (1992). The Effect of Imagery-Based Mnemonics on the Long-Term Retention of Chinese Characters. Language learning, 42(3), 359-376.

Thorndyke, P. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1980). A critique of schema-based theories of human story memory. Poetics, 9, 23-49

Trufello, I., Pérez, F., Aspillaga, E., Catalán, L. (2001) Infoeduca: Contenidos educacionales evaluados, que potencien masivamente el proceso de aprendizaje significativo a través de Internet. presented in Taller Internacional de Sofware Educativo 2001, Chile. Retrived from http://www.c5.cl/ieinvestiga/i_actas.htm

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and word. (A. Kozulin, trans.) Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.

Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Khan, M. (1994). Isolating variables that impact on or detract from the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 279-289.