learning conditions. This procedure would still allow the selection of comparable sets of unknown target words, but it would make the learning condition a consolidation activity that is closer to what naturally occurs in the classroom. A second aspect of the design that might be improved upon is the number of times target words were written. Earlier studies examined the effects of writing words two (Barcroft, 2006) or three times (Thomas & Dieter, 1987). However, these figures may not accurately reflect initial word writing in the classroom, where words are most likely written only once. The consequence of writing words more than once in the research is that the writing process may become easier in subsequent encounters allowing participants to write words more quickly and direct greater attention to viewing the word-picture pairs. This may account for the similarity in average raw scores between the word writing and non-writing conditions on the test of form-meaning connection. It would be useful for future studies investigating the effects of word writing to limit the number of encounters to one to see how this affects learning. It should also be noted that none of the conditions were very effective in developing knowledge of form-meaning connection. This was due in part to the design of the study. Learning 24 words in two brief encounters is unlikely to lead to large gains in knowledge. Research on paired-associate learning has indicated that increasing the number of encounters (Crothers & Suppes, 1967; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007, 2008; Nakata, 2017), including a recall component (Barcroft, 2007; McNamara & Healy, 1995), and increasing spacing (Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006; Landauer & Bjork, 1978; Nakata, 2015) all have a positive effect on learning. This suggests that it would be possible to increase learning of word-picture pairs relatively easily. However, in the word writing condition learning might be limited without repeated study. Thus, while word writing with unlimited time was most effective in this study, it may not be most effective in relation to other approaches to
learning conditions. This procedure would still allow the selection of comparable sets of unknown target words, but it would make the learning condition a consolidation activity that is closer to what naturally occurs in the classroom. A second aspect of the design that might be improved upon is the number of times target words were written. Earlier studies examined the effects of writing words two (Barcroft, 2006) or three times (Thomas & Dieter, 1987). However, these figures may not accurately reflect initial word writing in the classroom, where words are most likely written only once. The consequence of writing words more than once in the research is that the writing process may become easier in subsequent encounters allowing participants to write words more quickly and direct greater attention to viewing the word-picture pairs. This may account for the similarity in average raw scores between the word writing and non-writing conditions on the test of form-meaning connection. It would be useful for future studies investigating the effects of word writing to limit the number of encounters to one to see how this affects learning. It should also be noted that none of the conditions were very effective in developing knowledge of form-meaning connection. This was due in part to the design of the study. Learning 24 words in two brief encounters is unlikely to lead to large gains in knowledge. Research on paired-associate learning has indicated that increasing the number of encounters (Crothers & Suppes, 1967; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007, 2008; Nakata, 2017), including a recall component (Barcroft, 2007; McNamara & Healy, 1995), and increasing spacing (Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006; Landauer & Bjork, 1978; Nakata, 2015) all have a positive effect on learning. This suggests that it would be possible to increase learning of word-picture pairs relatively easily. However, in the word writing condition learning might be limited without repeated study. Thus, while word writing with unlimited time was most effective in this study, it may not be most effective in relation to other approaches to
Webb_Piasecki_ITL_2018%20%28002%29.docx