Cover not available

Article published In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 175:2 (2024) ► pp.242–270

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The effect of test format on productive recall of derivatives

ORCiD logo with link | University of Western Ontario
ORCiD logo with link | University of Western Ontario
Published online: 12 December 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.23002.iwa
Abstract
This study investigated the extent to which two recall test formats – contextualized and decontextualized tests – affected productive recall of derivatives, and how the effects of token frequencies of derivatives and L2 receptive vocabulary knowledge on recalling derivatives was moderated by test format. Mixed effects logistic regression models examined the derivatives elicited from L1 (n = 21) and L2 English speakers’ (n = 107) on the two recall tests. Results indicated that contextual cues significantly facilitated recalling derivatives, while such facilitative effects were larger for native speakers and L2 learners with greater vocabulary knowledge. Furthermore, token frequency affected the responses on the decontextualized test to a greater degree compared to the contextualized test. Results suggest that test format influences test-takers’ ability to recall knowledge to produce derivatives.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The effect of context on productive recall
  • Measuring derivational knowledge in context and isolation
  • To what extent does context facilitate productive recall of derivatives?
  • How does test format moderate the effects of derivative frequency and prior vocabulary knowledge?
  • Rationale and research questions
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Procedure
    • Derivative form recall test format
      • Contextualized form recall test
      • Decontextualized form recall test
      • Scoring
      • Derivative frequency
      • The Updated Vocabulary Levels Test (uVLT)
  • Analysis
  • Results
    • To what extent does test format moderate productive recall of L1 and L2 derivatives?
    • To what extent does test format affect learners at different vocabulary levels?
    • To what extent does test format moderate the effects of derivative frequency and prior vocabulary knowledge?
  • Discussion
    • To what extent does test format moderate productive recall of derivatives?
    • To what extent does test format affect productive recall of derivatives for learners at different vocabulary levels?
    • To what extent does test format moderate the effects of derivative frequency and prior vocabulary knowledge?
  • Methodological and pedagogical implications
  • Conclusion
  • References
References (61)
References
Aviad-Levitzky, T., Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2019). The new computer adaptive test of size and strength (CATSS): Development and validation. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(3), 345–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barclay, J. R., Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., McCarrell, N. S., & Nitsch, K. (1974). Comprehension and semantic flexibility. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(4), 471–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk, R. A. (2004). Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critique. Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brezina, V., & Gablasova, D. (2015). Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the new general service list. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1):91, 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, L., & DeLuca, C. (2011). Voices from test-takers: Further evidence for language assessment validation and use, Educational Assessment, 16(2), 104–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Neubauer, K. (2020). Morphology, frequency, and the processing of derived words in native and non-native speakers. Lingua, 120(11), 2627–2637. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cobb, T., & Laufer, B. (2021). The nuclear word family list: A list of the most frequent family members, including base and affixed words. Language Learning. 71(3), 834–871. publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coxhead, A., Nation, I. S. P., & Sim, D. (2015). Measuring the vocabulary size of native speakers of English in New Zealand secondary schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(1), 121–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dang, T. N. Y., & Webb, S. (2016). Making an essential word list for beginners. In I. S. P. Nation, Making and using word lists for language learning and testing (pp. 153–167, 188–195). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R Companion to Applied Regression (3rd ed.). Sage. [URL]
González-Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2020). Word knowledge: Exploring the relationships and order of acquisition of vocabulary knowledge components. Applied Linguistics, 41(4) 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2021). (Generalized linear) mixed-effects modeling: A learner corpus example. Language Learning, 71(3), 757–798. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartig, F. (2020). DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. (R package version 0.4.1) [Computer software]. [URL]
Iwaizumi, E. & Webb, S. (2021). To what extent does productive derivational knowledge of adult L1 speakers and L2 learners at two educational levels differ? TESOL Journal, 12(4), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwaizumi, E., & Webb, S. (2022). Measuring L1 and L2 productive derivational knowledge: How many derivatives can L1 and L2 learners with differing vocabulary levels produce? TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 100–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwaizumi, E. & Webb, S. (2023). To what extent do learner- and word-related variables affect production of derivatives? Language Learning, 73(1), 301–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishii, T., & Schmitt, N. (2009). Developing an integrated diagnostic test of vocabulary size and depth. RELC Journal, 40(1), 5–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kremmel, B. (2021). Selling the (word) family silver? A response to Webb’s lemma dilemma Studies in Second Language Studies, 43(5), 962–964. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kremmel, B., & Schmitt, N. (2016). Interpreting vocabulary test scores: What do various item formats tell us about learners’ ability to employ words? Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 377–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C. (2018). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1030–1046. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Understanding L2-derived words in context: Is complete receptive morphological knowledge necessary? Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advanced online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Aviad-Levitzky, T. (2017). What type of vocabulary knowledge predicts reading comprehension: Word meaning recall or word meaning recognition? The Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 729–741. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15–30. [URL]
Laufer, B., Webb, S., Kim, S., & Yohanan, B. (2021). How well do learners know derived words in a second language? The effect of proficiency, word frequency and type of affix. ILT – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 172(2), 229–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenth, R. V. (2022). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. (R package version 1.7.3) [Computer software] [URL]
Leontjev, D., Huhta, A., & Mäntylä, K. (2016). Word derivational knowledge and writing proficiency: How do they link? System, 591, 73–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCutchen, D., & Stull, S. (2015). Morphological awareness and children’s writing: accuracy, error, and invention. Reading and Writing, 28(2), 271–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miralpeix, I., & Muñoz, C. (2018). Receptive vocabulary size and its relationship to EFL language skills, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, Nation, P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9–13. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2012). The BNC/COCA word family list. [URL]
(2022). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary. Heinle ELT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qian, D. D. (2005). Demystifying lexical inferencing: The role of aspects of vocabulary knowledge. TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 34–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). From single words to passages: Contextual effects on predictive power of vocabulary measures for assessing reading performance, Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(1), 1–19, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Version 4.1.2) [Computer software]. [URL]
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sasao, Y., & Webb, S. (2017). The word part levels test. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 12–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan UK. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 17–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 145–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snoder, P., & Laufer, B. (2023). EFL learners’ receptive knowledge of derived words: The case of Swedish Adolescents. TESOL Quarterly, 56(4), 1242–1265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352 – 373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(3), 287–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 232–245. [URL]
(2018). Advanced lexical development. In Malovrh, P. A. & A. G. Benati (Eds). The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 401–418). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). The lemma dilemma: How should words be operationalized in research and pedagogy? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(5), 941–949. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webb, S. & Chang, A. C.-S. (2015). How does prior word knowledge affect vocabulary learning progress in an extensive reading program? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(5), 941–949. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webb, S., Sasao, Y., & Ballance, O. (2017). The updated vocabulary levels test: Developing and validating two new forms of the VLT. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 33–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Tran, Phuong Nhi, Pham Thi Hong Nhung, Huy Van Nguyen & Bao Trang Thi Nguyen
2025. Vietnamese EFL Learners’ Productive Derivative Knowledge: Contextualized Derivative Recall Test Performance and Its Relationship with Derivative Misuse in Argumentative Essays. rEFLections 32:3 ► pp. 1470 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue