What’s easy to learn is easy to forget
Kathelijn Dirken 10587357University of Amsterdam-‐ Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Prof. dr. A.B.M. de Groot
Abstract
In this study examined the effects of learning conditions on the acquisition of new words in one’s native language. Based on former studies, we hypothesized that people who learned under easy circumstances will remember new material better on the short-‐term but worse or better on the long-‐term, compared to people who learned under difficult conditions. Thirty-‐eight participants were divided in two groups (easy vs. difficult learning conditions) and learned 27 unfamiliar Dutch words. The participants in the easy learning condition group were pre-‐trained by familiarization of the unfamiliar target words. The
participants in the no pre-‐training group were not familiarized with the target words. The design of the conducted experiment consisted of training (pre-‐ training vs. no pre-‐training), a learning phase and a delayed testing phase. During the learning phase participants will learn the words followed by an immediate recall and will do this three times. The delayed testing phase was conducted six to eight days after the learning phase and consisted of and recall test followed by relearning an immediate recall test. The results of a two-‐way ANOVA showed no difference between the immediate recall performance of the group who learned under easy circumstances and the group who learned under difficult circumstances; thus, our hypothesis was rejected.
Table of Content
1. Introduction
p. 4
2. Method
p. 8
3. Results
p. 11
4. Discussion
p.15
5. References
p. 18
Appendix
Appendix 1: List of stimuli p.20 Appendix 2: Informed consent p.21 Appendix 3: Instructions for the pre-‐training group p.22 Appendix 4: Instructions for the no pre-‐training group p.23 Appendix 5: Concise research description p.24
2. Introduction
Over the last decades of the 20th century few researchers have shown interest in vocabulary learning. According to de Groot (2006) this disinterest could be explained by the complexity of studying vocabulary learning due to the
immenseness of lexicon. Present day the importance of vocabulary learning is no longer overlooked. In this study the effect of learning conditions on the
acquisition of new words in one’s native language (NL) are examined.
Studies have shown that the condition in which people study new information affects the process of learning new words in a foreign language (De Groot & Keijzer, 2000). It is favourable to determine the best circumstances for learning unfamiliar words. The possible outcomes of this study can help people who are aiming to expand their vocabulary (Atkinson, 1972).
A previous study by Schneider, Healy and Bourne (2002) shows that new foreign words are retained better when learning takes place under difficult
circumstances than words that are learned under easy circumstances. Based on this hypothesis, this study hypothesizes that new Dutch words that are learned under difficult circumstances are remembered better than words that are learned under easy circumstances. This study aims to add to the general hypothesis of Schneider and her colleagues (2002) by using words from the native language of the participants.
Multiple studies supported the hypothesis stated by Schneider at al., (2002) by using different ways to manipulate the difficulty of the learning circumstances. One of the most common ways to manipulate the circumstances is by creating contextual interference. Contextual interference is the interference of while processing new information. The contextual interference effect as defined by Battig (1972) is a learning phenomenon where interference during practice is beneficial to learning. Battig (1972) states that materials learned with a high interference are processed more slowly but are remembered better then materials learned with little interference.
There are multiple ways to interfere in the learning process and thereby creating difficult learning circumstances. One of these methods is mixed opposed to blocked learning. Blocked learning can be described as learning words presented together with words from the same category as an instructional block. For
example, participants are taught terms relating body parts in one lesson and terms for food types in another lesson. During mixed learning the words of both categories are mixed up. Mixing creates contextual interference and therefore enhances the difficulty of the learning circumstances. Schneider and colleagues (1998) found that grouping by category aided initial learning but if anything hindered subsequent relearning.
In addition to their earlier work on vocabulary learning, Schneider, Healy and Bourne (2002) conducted two experiments in their follow-‐up study by
examining transfer as well as retention through the use of two different manipulations. It adds to previous findings theoretically by testing the more general hypothesis that any method used to enhance difficulty during learning, not just contextual interference, may lead to better retention of the learned material. Firstly, they manipulated translation direction during learning and testing. The FL-‐to-‐NL direction was assumed to be easier than the NL-‐to-‐FL direction. This is based on the fact that the NL word is more familiar than the FL word, hence, should be easier to learn and to produce as a response. Secondly, participants pre-‐trained on half of the FL words before vocabulary learning started. During pre-‐training participants were familiarized with the new target words. The pre-‐training consisted of participants seeing a FL word without the NL equivalent on the computer screen followed by immediately typing that word. Based on their results Schneider and colleagues (2002) concluded that it appears that retention and transfer suffers less when conditions of training are difficult.
Additionally, De Groot and Smedinga (2014) tested the general hypothesis of Schneider et al., (2002) with the use of another method to create contextual interference. They studied the effect of vocal background music with familiar language lyrics on FL vocabulary learning. Their participants learned new words in three conditions: in silence, with vocal music with lyrics in a familiar language
playing in the background or with vocal music with lyrics in an unfamiliar language playing in the background. They found that when tested during and immediately after training, learning outcomes were poorer in the familiar language music condition than in the unfamiliar language music and silence conditions, but this effect was short-‐lived, as shown in a delayed test 1 week after training, on which the effect was no longer found. These findings support the general hypothesis of Schneider et al., (2002).
These studies employed “paired-‐associate” learning (PAL), which involves the pairing of two items – a stimulus and a response. During learning pairs of stimuli are presented; one of them is the word in the target FL and the second is the corresponding NL word (“word-‐association” learning) or a picture representing the meaning of the word (“picture-‐association” learning).
The present study looks at the role of the circumstances while learning new words in the native language. For this reason an alternative form of PAL has been used as the method for learning new vocabulary. Since this study does not use a foreign language, there are no words that directly correspond the new NL words. Instead, the learning stimulus consists of three components: the auditory target word, a corresponding picture of the word and a definition of the word. The participants hear the target word and are simultaneously presented with the picture and definition of that word. The test stimulus is the picture used in the learning stimulus and the respond is saying the corresponding word out loud. The difficulty of the circumstances while learning new words was manipulated by use of pre-‐training. The pre-‐training group heard the target words three times and had to repeat them out loud. The no pre-‐training group consisted of
participants who heard digit series instead of the target words and had to repeat them out loud. The learning circumstances for the pre-‐training group were easier because they had the advantage of hearing the words three times before the learning sessions started because vocal rehearsal benefits the learning of new words (Kaushanskaya and Yoo, 2011).
Additionally, the vocabulary size of all participants will be measured with the use of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-‐III) to establish the relationship between the vocabulary size of the participants and their ability to learn new
words.
This study has a between-‐subjects design to avoid proactive and retroactive interference. Retroactive interference is the tendency of later learning to hinder the memory of previously learned material. Pro-‐active interference is the
tendency of previous learned material to hinder subsequent learning (Radvansky, 2015). With the use of a within-‐subject design the participants would have to learn two lists of words. The participants would learn one list of words with pre-‐ training and one list without pre-‐training. Consequently, depending on the order in which the lists are learned, proactive or retroactive interference would take place. For this reason the performance on the two lists would not be comparable.
The first hypothesis states that people who learn under easy circumstances will remember words better on the short term compared to people who learned under difficult circumstances. The second hypothesis builds on the first
hypothesis regarding long-‐term memory and consists of three sub-‐hypotheses. The first sub-‐hypotheses states that people who learn under easy circumstances exceed people who learned under difficult circumstances on remembering words on the long-‐term to the same extent. The second sub-‐hypothesis is that people who learn under easy circumstances exceed people who learned under difficult circumstances on remembering words on the long-‐term to a lesser extent. The third sub-‐hypothesis that people who learn under difficult circumstances will remember words better on short-‐term compared to people who learned under easy circumstances.
This study is an altered replication of a study done by Bos (2013) who
hypothesized that hat the participants who learned under easy circumstances will remember the words better on the immediate recall test but the same or worse on the a delayed recall test after relearning, compared to the participants who learned under difficult conditions. She concluded there was no difference between the two groups after relearning. In this study the participant not relearn the words before the delayed recall test, which differentiate this study from the study of Bos (2013).
vs. no pre-‐training), a learning phase and a delayed testing phase. During the learning phase participants will learn the words followed by an immediate recall and will do this three times. The delayed testing phase will be conducted six to eight days after the learning phase and will consist of and recall test followed by relearning an immediate recall test.
The first prediction is that the scores of the participants in the pre-‐training group will be higher then the participants in the no pre-‐training group at the immediate recall test. Our second prediction is that the difference between the scores of the groups (pre-‐training vs. no pre-‐training) will abbreviate, stagnate or overturn at the delayed recall test as to the scores at the immediate recall test.
3. Method
In this chapter, the methods of this study will be explained. Forty participants were recruited using an online platform on which people could sign up for participation (N=40).
DESIGN
General characteristics and in and exclusion criteria
Their ages varied from 18-‐25 with an average of 22.4. First-‐year psychology students were rewarded with two participant points. Since every first-‐year psychology student needs to collect ten participant points by participating in experiments throughout their first academic year, this was considered a motivating reward. Other participants were paid €15, -‐ for participation. The participants were shown a short description of the experiment online saying it concerns acquiring new Dutch vocabulary. The participants were randomly assigned to either condition (control vs pre-‐training condition).
The experiment was run on a Windows PC to which two monitors were
connected. One of the monitors was facing the participant and the other monitor was facing the experimenter. Headphones with a built-‐in microphone were used to play the auditory stimuli and to record the participant's response. The
experiment was programmed in Presentation (Version 14.6). Word-‐picture-‐description triplets
Twenty-‐seven paired association stimuli were used, each consisting of an infrequent Dutch word and a picture of the word together with a definition shown underneath. The words were presented auditory. The pictures consisted out of photographs of the corresponding words. During the test phase, the stimulus consisted out of the pictures only. The participants in the no pre-‐ training group were presented with 81-‐digit combinations. Both training condition have to assess the working memory to the same extend. For this reason, he number of digits of each combination was determined by the amount of syllables of each word. For example, ‘pardel’ consists of two syllables (par-‐del) so the corresponding digit combination consisted out of two syllables 4-‐6 (vier-‐ zes). The numbers from one to ten were used except for seven and nine since they consist out of two syllables when written in Dutch. The figure series were created by using random combinations out of the range of numbers, which resulted in an equal number of total syllables as the words used for the pre-‐ training group.
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-‐III-‐NL
The PPVT III is the leading measure of receptive vocabulary for standard Dutch and a screening test for verbal ability. The test consists of a bound booklet
containing 240 pages with four sets of images on each side divided over subtests. The participants were instructed to choose the right image with an orally
presented word. The complete set consists out of a manual, scoresheets and the booklet. The test takes about 10-‐15 minutes.
Procedure
The experiment consisted of a pre-‐training (pre-‐training vs. no pre-‐training), three learning followed by immediate recall sessions and a delayed recall test one week after the learning phase directly followed by one learning plus recall session.
During the experimental pre-‐training, the participants were presented with the 27 words auditorily three times after which they had to repeat the word they heard out loud. During the no pre-‐training, the participants were presented with a figure series consisting out of 81 number combinations after which they had to repeat the numbers they heard out loud.
Following the pre-‐training the experiment was the same for all participants. These sessions consisted out of rounds of learning and immediate recall testing. Every set started with a learning session during which the word-‐picture-‐
definition triplets were presented to the participants for 10 seconds. The word of the pair was played through the headphones when the picture appeared and again after five seconds. Every session all word-‐picture-‐definition triplets were shown once. Following the learning session was the immediate recall session during which only the images were presented to the participants for 5 seconds. the participants were instructed to recall and generate the corresponding word to the image and generate it themselves. These sets of learning and immediate recall were done three times during the first testing day. One week later the participants came back to the lab for the second testing day. First, they were retested using the same method as used for the immediate recall sessions. Following the retest, the participants had to do one more round of learning and
Table 1. Overview set up experiment
Pre-‐training No Pre-‐training
Pre-‐training Digits Learning Learning Test 1 Test 1 Learning Learning Test 2 Test 2 Learning Learning Test 3 Test 3
One week interval
Test 4 Test 4
Relearning Relearning
Test 5 Test 5
immediate recall testing as described previously.
At the end of the last test moment the experimenter took the PPVT III-‐NL as described previously.
4. Results
The data from one participant was excluded from the data due to absence during the second testing session. Additionally, two participants who scored more than two standard deviations from the mean on Test 3 (M=13.9) were identified. These outliers were excluded from the analysis. This leaves the pre-‐training group with a total of 19 participants and the no pre-‐training group with 18 participants. The scores for each participant were converted into percentages to show the score relative to the total score. The mean scores of these percentages were calculated for each testing session for both the pre-‐training group and the no pre-‐training group as, shown in Table 2.
Learning session (Tests 1,2 & 3)
A 2x3 ANOVA analysis was run on the recall scores of the participants with training as a dependent between group variable (pre-‐training vs. no pre-‐
training) and Test (1 vs. 2 vs. 3) as within-‐subject variable. The analysis showed whether there is a significant difference between the recall scores of the two groups.
Table 2. Mean percentages per test for the pre-‐training group and no pre-‐training group
Group Mean Std. Deviation
Pre-‐training Test 1 16.37 12.37
(N=19) Test 2 41.32 22.09
Test 3 59.84 23.07
Test 4 (Retest) 40.16 22.27
Test 5 72.12 19.81
No pre-‐training Test 1 11.52 9.94
N=18 Test 2 36.83 15.94
Test 3 59.05 15.34
Test 4 (Retest) 35.19 25.79
Mauchly’s test of sphericity was used to test the data for sphericity. It indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, W(2) = 0.74, p = .006. Therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse–Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .794). Since ε >0.75, the Huyn-‐Feldt was used for correction (ε =0.596).
The effect of training was not significant (F(1, 35)=0 ,414, p = ,52.) This means that the participants who were in the pre-‐training group (M=39,18) did not have significantly higher recall scores than the participants in the no pre-‐training group (M=35,95). However, a significant effect of test was found, (F(2,59) = 193,14, p=0). This means that the participants significantly improved during the learning sessions Test 1 (M=13,95), Test 2 (M=39,08) and Test 3 (M=59,45), as
Table 3. Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya
Measure: MEASURE_1 Within Subjects Effect Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-‐ Square df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-‐ Geisser Huynh-‐ Feldt Lower-‐ bound Test moment .740 10.243 2 .006 .794 .849 .500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Figure 1.
Pre-‐training No pre-‐training
illustrated in Figure 1. Furthermore, the interaction effect between test and training was not significant (F(2, 59) = 0,47, p= 0,6).
Additional analysis
Due to the insignificance of the effect of pre-‐training during the learning phase, both groups were split in two groups based on their recall score on Test 3 (below average vs. above average). The overall median of the raw scores on Test 3 was used as a cut-‐off score, which resulted into the following four groups: Pre-‐ training with above average score, Pre-‐training with below average score, No pre-‐training with above average score, No pre-‐training with below average score. A 4x3 ANOVA was conducted with group and Test (1 vs. 2 vs. 3) as independent variables and recall score as dependent variable. The results
indicate a significant effect of group, F(3,33) = 19,73, p=0. This shows that there is a significant difference between the recall scores of the participants in de four groups. Since the original two groups were divided into four groups based on their recall scores this main effect of group was to be expected and does not provide new information about the effect of training. However, the pairwise comparisons of ‘pre-‐training with above average score’ and ‘no pre-‐training with above average score’ do indicate an effect of training. Considering the effect is going in the predicted direction the p-‐value is one-‐tailed which results in p=,049.
Figure 2.
Be
for
e
int
er
val vs. after interval (Test 3 & Test 4)
A 2x2 ANOVA analysis was conducted to compare the effect of training (pre-‐ training, M=50 vs. no pre-‐training, M=47,12) as between-‐subject variable and Test (Test 3, M=59,45 vs. Test 4, M=37,68) as within-‐subject variable on the recall scores. The analysis of variance showed that the effect of training was not significant, F(1, 35) = 0,16, p= 0,69. However, the results did reveal a significant effect of test (F(1, 35) = 74,75, p= ,0) which indicates that participants scored significantly lower during Test 4 than during Test 3. Furthermore, no significant effect of interaction between test and training was found (F(1, 35) = 0,69, p= 0,41).
Before interval vs. relearning after interval (Test 3 & Test 5)
A one-‐way ANOVA was run to compare the effect of training (pre-‐training,
M=65,98 vs. no pre-‐training, M=64,71) and the effect of Test (Test 3, M=59,45 vs. Test 5, M=71,25) on the recall scores. The analysis of variance shows that the effect of training (pre-‐training vs. no pre-‐training) was not significant, F(1, 35) = ,04, p= ,85. However, the results did reveal a significant effect of test (F(1, 35) = ,04, p= ,85) which indicates that participants scored significantly lower during Test 4 than during Test 3.
Test 4 (pre-‐training vs. no pre-‐training)
Additionally, a T-‐test was conducted with training as independent between group variable (pre-‐training vs. no pre-‐training) to compare the means of Test 4. There was an insignificant difference in the recall scores for pre-‐training
(M=40.16, SD=22.27) and no pre-‐training (M=35.19, SD=25.79); t(35)=-‐.63, P=,53.
Lastly, two Pearson’s correlation coefficients were computed to assess the relationship between PPVT-‐III scores and the recall scores on Test 3 and Test 5. There was no correlation between the PPVT-‐III scores and Test 3 (r=.29, n=37, p=.085) or Test 5 (r=.26, N=37, p=.12).
5. Discussion
The aim of this study was to look at the process of learning new Dutch words when manipulating the circumstances under which learning takes place. We manipulated the learning process by creating two learning conditions. The circumstances for the participants in one group were easy because of pre-‐
training; the participants in the other group had no pre-‐training, which made the circumstances difficult.
The first hypothesis was that people who learn under easy circumstances would remember words better on immediate recall tests compared to people who learned under difficult circumstances. Our results show no difference between
the immediate recall performance of the group who learned under easy circumstances and the group who learned under difficult circumstances; thus, the first hypothesis was rejected.
The second hypothesis was based on the assumption of the first hypothesis. The second hypothesis consisted of three sub-‐hypothesis. The first sub hypothesis was that people who learn under easy circumstances exceed people who learned under difficult circumstances on remembering words on the delayed recall test to the same extent as on the immediate recall test. The second sub hypothesis was that people who learn under easy circumstances exceed people who learned under difficult circumstances on remembering words on the delayed recall test to a lesser extent than on the immediate recall test. The third sub-‐hypothesis was that people who learn under difficult circumstances would remember words better on a delayed recall test compared to people who learned under easy circumstances.
Since all three sub hypothesis of the second hypothesis predicted outcomes on the delayed recall test provided that this study would support the first
hypothesis. Consequently, all three sub-‐hypothesis of the second hypothesis were rejected as well. Additionally, there was no positive correlation vocabulary size and the ability to learn new words. This finding does not support the
expectation that people who have a larger vocabulary are naturally better at learning new words.
Additionally, an important concern is the fact that results reject the first
hypothesis since this study replicated the study of Isabelle Bos. In addition, these expectations were based on multiple previous studies (Schneider et al., 2002). A possible explanation could be the education level and age of the sample group. In this study the sample consisted out of participants currently studying at the University of Amsterdam. Their ages varied from 18-‐25. The participants that took part in the study of Isabelle Bos did not consist exclusively out of students and their ages varies from 18-‐40. It could be argued that the difference in age and education of the sample groups consequently caused a difference in their learning curve. As shown in Figure 1 the average recall score of the pre-‐training
group was higher then the average recall score of the no pre-‐training group at Test 1 and Test 2. The fact that no difference was found at Test 3 could be explained by the learning curve of the sample group, which corrected for the initial disadvantage of no pre-‐training.
Continuing on the rejected first hypothesis, a possible explanation could be the variances in recall scores between participants. As shown in Table 1 the
standard deviations are quite high, which indicates that the participants varied in their ability to learn new words. The insignificant results on the effect of training during the learning phase could be caused by unequal division of participants with an advanced ability to learn new words. To correct for this variance, each group was divided in two based on their recall score on Test 3 (below average vs. above average). A post hoc analysis was run on the recall scores of these four groups, with condition as an independent between group variable (pre-‐training with above average score vs. pre-‐training with below average score vs. no pre-‐training with above average score, vs. no pre-‐training with below average score.) and Test (1 vs. 2 vs. 3) as within-‐subject variable. This analysis shows whether there is a difference between the recall scores of the four groups. Results of the ANOVA comparing the above average pre-‐ training group and the above average no pre-‐training group showed that an effect of training was found (Figure 1.). This supports the possibility that between participant variance caused our results to reject the first hypothesis. This finding could be used for future reference by using a bigger sample group or selective sample selection to correct for the between participant variance.
A final issue has to do with the design of the experiment. Initially, this study aimed to retest all participants seven days after the learning phase. However the interval between Test 3 and Test 4 varied between six and eight days because of the limited flexibility of the participants.
Table 3. shows that the average interval duration of the pre-‐training group is 7,2 days and the average interval duration of the no pre-‐training group is 6,9 days. For future research it would be advisable to set the duration of the time interval at seven days to ensure that the time of forgetting between test and retest is equal for all participants.
As mentioned in the introduction Schneider et al (2002) wrote on the subject that there is a direct effect of pre-‐training by the process of familiarization. Contrary to their theory the results of this study do not support the theory of familiarization by pre-‐training. With this finding we cannot generalize their theory to Dutch words.
To sum up, the fact that we found no difference between the easy (pre-‐training) and the difficult (no pre-‐training) condition rejects our prediction that
manipulating the circumstances while learning new words by the use of pre-‐ training has an effect when tested immediately. Consequently the second hypothesis was rejected due to the fact that it was based on the first hypothesis.
Table 3.Time interval between Test 3 and Test 4
Pre-‐training (N=20; M=7.2)
No pre-‐training (N=17; M=6.9)
Duration of the interval 6 days 7 days 8 days 6 days 7 days 8 days
6. References
Atkinson, R.C. (1972). Optimizing the learning of a second-‐language vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 124-‐129.
Battig, W. F. (1972). Intratask interference as a source of facilitation in transfer
and retention. Topics in learning and performance, 131-‐159.
De Groot, A., & Keijzer, R. (2000). What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign-‐ language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 50(1), 1-‐56.
De Groot, A. M. B. (2006). Effects of stimulus characteristics and background music on foreign language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 56(3), 463-‐506.
De Groot, A. M. B. & Smedinga, H. E. (2014). "LET THE MUSIC PLAY!." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36, 681-‐707.
Kaushanskaya, M., & Yoo, J. (2011). Rehearsal effects in adult word learning. Language And Cognitive Processes, 26, 121-‐148.
Radvansky, G. A. (2015). Human memory. Psychology Press.
Schneider, V.I., Healy, A.F., & Bourne, L.E. (1998) Contextual interference effects in foreign language vocabulary acquisition and retention. Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic studies on Training and Retention, chapter 3, 77-‐90.
Schneider, V.I., Healy, A.F., & Bourne, L.E. (2002). What is learned under difficult conditions is hard to forget: contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 419-‐ 440.
People learn every day. The field of Psychology distinguishes implicit learning from explicit learning.
Either by actively studying certain information, like students who study for an exam, or simply by social experiences throughout the day. In the field of psychology these.
Appendix 1: List of stimuli
Appendix 2: Informed consent
TOESTEMMINGSVERKLARING “Het effect van voortraining op
vocabulaire leren”
Dit formulier hoort bij de schriftelijke informatie die u heeft ontvangen over het onderzoek waar u aan deelneemt. Met ondertekening van dit formulier verklaart u dat u de deelnemersinformatie heeft gelezen en begrepen. Verder geeft u met de ondertekening te kennen dat u akkoord gaat met de gang van zaken zoals deze staat beschreven in de informatiebrochure.
Als u nog verdere informatie over het onderzoek zou willen krijgen kunt u zich wenden tot de verantwoordelijke onderzoeker, Dr. Annette de Groot, tel. 020 5256844, email a.m.b.degroot@uva.nl, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1018 WS Amsterdam. Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kunt u zich wenden tot het lid van de Facultaire Commissie Ethiek (FMG-UvA), Dr. R.H. Phaf, tel. 020-5256841, email R.H.Phaf@uva.nl, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129, 1018 WS Amsterdam. [DEELNEMER]
“Ik heb de informatie gelezen en begrepen en geef toestemming voor deelname aan het onderzoek en gebruik van de daarmee verkregen gegevens. Ik behoud daarbij het recht om zonder opgaaf van reden deze instemming weer in te trekken. Tevens behoud ik het recht op ieder door mij gewenst moment te stoppen met het experiment.”
Aldus in tweevoud getekend: Datum:
………... ………
naam proefpersoon handtekening
[ONDERZOEKER]
“Ik heb toelichting verstrekt op het onderzoek. Ik verklaar mij bereid nog opkomende vragen over het onderzoek naar vermogen te beantwoorden.”
Datum:
………... ………
naam onderzoeker handtekening
Appendix 3: Instructions for the pre-‐training group
Informatie proefpersonen
Geachte deelnemer aan het onderzoek ‘nieuwe woorden leren in de moedertaal’
U gaat deelnemen aan een onderzoek naar het leren van nieuwe woorden in uw eigen taal. Voordat het onderzoek begint, is het belangrijk dat u kennis neemt van de procedure die in het onderzoek wordt gevolgd. Leest u daarom
onderstaande instructies zorgvuldig door.
Doel van het onderzoek
U gaat meedoen aan een onderzoek waarin de invloed van leercondities op het leren van nieuwe woorden in de eigen taal wordt onderzocht.
Instructies
In het begin van het onderzoek zal u verschillende woorden horen via de koptelefoon. Het is de bedoeling dat u de woorden hardop nazegt. Er wordt 3x dezelfde set van 27 woorden gepresenteerd. Daarna begint de leerfase. In de leerfase zullen er afbeeldingen verschijnen. Hierbij wordt auditief het
bijbehorende woord genoemd en de daarbij behorende definitie gegeven. Het is de bedoeling dat u een afbeelding koppelt aan het woord dat u hoort en de definitie. De afbeeldingen blijven 10 seconden op het scherm staan. Vervolgens wordt het scherm even zwart en hierna verschijnt een nieuwe stimulus. Nadat alle afbeeldingen 1x zijn aangeboden, volgt de testfase. Hierbij wordt verwacht dat u het juiste woord benoemt bij de afbeelding.
In totaal zullen er 3 leerfases zijn en 3 testfases.
Over een week zal het tweede deel van het experiment plaatsvinden. Dit zal maximaal 30 minuten duren.
Proefpersonen die niet mee kunnen doen aan het onderzoek
Het is niet mogelijk om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoek als Nederlands niet uw moedertaal is. Eveneens kunt u niet deelnemen als u visuele of gehoorproblemen heeft.
Alvast heel erg bedankt voor uw deelname en succes! Manon Gerber Marloes Raats Kathelijn Dirken Amber Scheer
Appendix 4: Instructions for the no pre-‐training group
Informatie proefpersonen
Geachte deelnemer aan het onderzoek ‘nieuwe woorden leren in de moedertaal’
U gaat deelnemen aan een onderzoek naar het leren van nieuwe woorden in uw eigen taal. Voordat het onderzoek begint, is het belangrijk dat u kennis neemt van de procedure die in het onderzoek wordt gevolgd. Leest u daarom
onderstaande instructies zorgvuldig door.
Doel van het onderzoek
U gaat meedoen aan een onderzoek waarin de invloed van leercondities op het leren van nieuwe woorden in de eigen taal wordt onderzocht.
Instructies
In het begin van het onderzoek krijgt u verschillende getallen te horen via de koptelefoon. Het is de bedoeling dat u deze getallen hardop nazegt. Daarna begint de leerfase. In de leerfase zullen er afbeeldingen verschijnen. Hierbij wordt auditief het bijbehorende woord genoemd en de daarbij behorende
definitie gegeven. Het is de bedoeling dat u een afbeelding koppelt aan het woord dat u hoort en de definitie. De afbeeldingen blijven 10 seconden op het scherm staan. Vervolgens wordt het scherm even zwart en hierna verschijnt een nieuwe stimulus. Nadat alle afbeeldingen 1x zijn aangeboden, volgt de testfase. Hierbij wordt verwacht dat u het juiste woord benoemt bij de bijbehorende afbeelding.
Over een week zal het tweede deel van het experiment plaatsvinden.
Proefpersonen die niet mee kunnen doen aan het onderzoek
Het is niet mogelijk om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoek als Nederlands niet uw moedertaal is. Eveneens kunt u niet deelnemen als u visuele of gehoorproblemen heeft.
Alvast heel erg bedankt voor uw deelname en succes! Manon Gerber Marloes Raats Kathelijn Dirken Amber Scheer
Appendix 5: Concise research description
Het Effect van Voortraining op Vocabulaire Leren
Procedure
Het materiaal dat we gebruiken, is een woordenlijst met 27 Nederlandse woorden die niet frequent voorkomen in de Nederlandse taal en hun betekenis.
Er wordt gebruik gemaakt van twee condities; een voortraining conditie en een controle conditie. Proefpersonen worden random toegewezen aan één van de twee condities. Dit is een tussenproefpersoon design.
Voor het experiment begint, zullen de proefpersonen in de voortraining conditie een voortraining ontvangen. Deze bestaat uit drie rondes. In iedere ronde krijgen de proefpersonen in de experimentele conditie alle 27 woorden auditief aangeboden, waarbij zij deze moeten herhalen. De proefpersonen in de controle conditie krijgen een soortgelijke taak, alleen zullen zij in plaats van de Nederlandse woorden, cijferreeksen aangeboden krijgen. Deze cijferreeksen komen qua structuur overeen met de
Nederlandse woorden; het zijn 27 reeksen en deze bevatten, wanneer uitgesproken, evenveel lettergrepen als de Nederlandse woorden. Ook hier zullen drie rondes plaatsvinden.
Hierna volgen de leer-‐ en testfasen. In de leerfase leren alle proefpersonen in beide condities de 27 woorden. Tijdens het leren van een woord, wordt een plaatje aangeboden met hieronder de geschreven betekenis van het woord. Hierbij wordt het woord ook nog twee keer auditief aangeboden, namelijk wanneer het plaatje en de geschreven betekenis op het computerscherm verschijnt en na vijf seconden. Al deze onderdelen bij elkaar worden één stimulus genoemd. Er zijn dus 27 stimuli die elk 10 seconden worden aangeboden en altijd in willekeurige volgorde. Er zullen drie leerfasen achter elkaar plaatsvinden, elk onmiddellijk gevolgd door een testfase. In de testfase worden de 27 plaatjes één voor één aangeboden en moeten de proefpersonen het bijbehorende woord uitspreken.
De conditie met voortraining heeft de volgende structuur:
Experimentele voortraining-‐Leren-‐Testen-‐Leren-‐Testen-‐Leren-‐Testen
Controle voortraining-‐Leren-‐Testen-‐Leren-‐Testen-‐Leren-‐Testen
Een week na de leer-‐ en testfases vindt een hertest plaats waarin alle 27 plaatjes nogmaals in willekeurige volgorde worden aangeboden (zonder nog eens geleerd te zijn), waarna de proefpersonen het bijbehorende woord moeten uitspreken. Hierna volgt er weer een leerfase voor beide condities, gevolgd door opnieuw een testfase waarin de plaatjes nogmaals in willekeurige volgorde worden aangeboden. Vervolgens wordt de PPVT-‐III, een vocabulaire meerkeuze test, afgenomen.
De complete structuur van het experiment is als volgt (experimentele conditie):
Testdag 1:
1. Voortraining voor de ppn in de experimentele conditie: driemaal auditief presenteren van de 27 woorden in willekeurige volgorde; pp spreekt het woord uit.
Cijfertaak voor de ppn in de controle conditie.
2. Leersessie 1: Eerste presentatie van alle 27 plaatjes-‐beschrijving paren en tweemaal aanbieden van het auditieve woord.
Testsessie 1: Alle 27 plaatjes; pp spreekt de bijbehorende woorden uit. 3. Leersessie 2: Tweede presentatie van alle 27 plaatjes-‐beschrijving paren en
tweemaal aanbieden van het auditieve woord.
Testsessie 2: Alle 27 plaatjes; pp spreekt de bijbehorende woorden uit. 4. Leersessie 3: Derde presentatie van alle 27 plaatjes-‐beschrijving paren en
tweemaal aanbieden van het auditieve woord.
Testsessie 3: Alle 27 plaatjes; pp spreekt de bijbehorende woorden uit.
Testdag 2: hertest 1 week later
1. Testsessie 1: Alle 27 plaatjes; pp spreekt de bijbehorende woorden uit. 2. Leersessie 1: Presentatie van alle 27 plaatjes-‐beschrijving paren en tweemaal
aanbieden van het auditieve woord.
Testsessie 2: Alle 27 plaatjes; pp spreekt de bijbehorende woorden uit. 3. PPVT-‐III vocabulaire test.
De controle conditie is dus gelijk aan de experimentele conditie behalve dat tijdens de voortraining cijferreeksen worden aangeboden, in plaats van de te leren woorden.
