Time, texts, and teaching in vocabulary acquisition: A rebuttal to Cobb (2016)

[...]it was precisely due to the weakness of these shallow instructional methods that rich vocabulary instruction was first promoted (Beck & McKeown, 1985; Stahl, 1986).5 Direct instruction of vocabulary also tends to produce word knowledge that is more fragile than that which is acquired incide...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inReading in a foreign language Vol. 28; no. 2; pp. 307 - 318
Main Author McQuillan, Jeff
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Honolulu University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center 01.10.2016
Reading in a Foreign Language
Subjects
Barriers
Criticism
Educational Development
Educational research
English (Second Language)
English as a second language
Foreign language instruction
Independent Reading
Individualized Education Programs
Language acquisition
Language Tests
Reader Response
Readers
Reading comprehension
Reading Habits
Reading Instruction
Reading Material Selection
Reading Materials
Reading Programs
Second Language Learning
Second Languages
Teaching
Text Structure
Time Factors (Learning)
Time on Task
Vocabulary Development
Vocabulary Skills
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1539-0578
1539-0578

Cover

More Information
Summary:[...]it was precisely due to the weakness of these shallow instructional methods that rich vocabulary instruction was first promoted (Beck & McKeown, 1985; Stahl, 1986).5 Direct instruction of vocabulary also tends to produce word knowledge that is more fragile than that which is acquired incidentally through reading, with gains fading more quickly over time. [...]the results of at least one attempt at spaced repetitions with paired associate learning are not encouraging. According to Nations (2014) estimates, reading also yields about seven words per hour from the 3,000- to 8,000-word-family level (6,000 words/868 hours = 6.9 words/hour). Word retention estimates are based on the average percent gain for all three vocabulary measures (form recall, meaning recall, and meaning recognition) multiplied by the number of words tested. Since recall scores tend to drop more sharply than multiple-choice recognition scores from immediate to delayed posttest for instructed words versus those acquired in incidental conditions (see Rott, 2004), combining the three measures also biases the comparison in favor of the reading-plus words.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:1539-0578
1539-0578