10.30495/jntell.2023.1973341.1030

Effects of Different Modes of Spacing on Iranian EFL Learners' Lexical Knowledge Development: Proficiency Levels in Focus

PDF
  • Mehrdad Mohebi1,
  • Omid Tabatabaei*2,
  • Hadi Salehi3,
  • Melor Yunus4,
  1. PhD Candidate, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
  2. Associate Professor, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
  3. Assistant Professor of Teaching, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
  4. Faculty of Education, UKM, Malaysia

Revised: 2022-11-22

Accepted: 2023-04-23

Published in Issue 2023-01-01

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Mohebi, M., Tabatabaei, O., Salehi, H., & Yunus, M. (2023). Effects of Different Modes of Spacing on Iranian EFL Learners’ Lexical Knowledge Development: Proficiency Levels in Focus. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 2(1), 71-83. https://doi.org/10.30495/jntell.2023.1973341.1030
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 156

Abstract

This study examined the effect of spacing on lexical development focusing on the Iranian EFL learners’ proficiency levels.
Participants were 120 EFL learners from 22 to 26 of age who were studying at several English institutes in Isfahan. Three tests
were used to collect the required data. First, OQPT was employed to place the learners with similar language abilities in an
experimental group and a control group. Based on the OQPT results, each group was divided into two sub-groups including 30
high and 30 low proficiency learners. Then a pretest was conducted to evaluate the EFLlearners’ vocabulary knowledge. Learners
in both control and experimental groups received the same lexicon but in different ways. Experimental groups were taught new
words through spaced instruction, while control groups received through massed instruction. The spacing classes were held once
a week in seven weeks while massed classes were held in one session in the eights week. During the posttest, the researcher
devised an achievement test, administered it after the treatment; the results were compared and analyzed in order to determine
the extent of the participants' vocabulary improvement. Findings of this research showed that using spaced instruction caused
high proficiency learners to significantly outweigh the low proficiency ones. Since spacing has been widely known to have a
positive effect on learning and long-term memory (Cepeda et al., 2006), therefore it can be found useful for curriculum developers
and syllabus designers in deciding where to put the new vocabulary in a course or a book.

Keywords

  • Spacing Instruction,
  • Massed Instruction,
  • EFL Proficiency Level,
  • , Lexical Development
PDF

References

  1. Carpenter, S. K. (2020). Distributed practice or spacing effect. In Oxford research encyclopedia of
  2. education.
  3. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal
  4. recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.
  5. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
  6. Challis, B. H. (1993). Spacing effects on cued-memory tests depend on level of processing. Journal of
  7. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 389.
  8. Chen, O., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2021). Spacing and Interleaving Effects Require Distinct Theoretical
  9. Bases: a Systematic Review Testing the Cognitive Load and Discriminative-Contrast Hypotheses.
  10. Educational Psychology Review, 1–24.
  11. Crowder, R. G. (2019). Systems and principles in memory theory: Another critique of pure memory. In
  12. Theories of memory (pp. 139–161). Psychology Press.
  13. DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 83–104).
  14. Routledge.
  15. DeKeyser, R., VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. Theories in Second
  16. Language Acquisition: An Introduction, 97113.
  17. Mohebi, Tabatabaei , Salehi, & Md Yunus- JNTELL, Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 2023
  18. DeKeyser, R., VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Theories in second language acquisition: An
  19. introduction. Routledge.
  20. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das gedächtnis: untersuchungen zur experimentellen psychologie. Duncker
  21. & Humblot.
  22. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (2014). Working memory and language. Psychology Press.
  23. Greene, R. L. (1989). Spacing effects in memory: Evidence for a two-process account. Journal of
  24. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 371.
  25. Halamish, V. (2018). Pre-service and In-service teachers’ metacognitive knowledge of learning
  26. strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2152.
  27. Hartshorne, J. K., & Makovski, T. (2019). The effect of working memory maintenance on long-term
  28. memory. Memory & Cognition, 47(4), 749–763.
  29. Hosseini, E. Z., Nasri, M., & Afghari, A. (2017). Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behavior: novice
  30. and experienced EFL teachers’ practice of pedagogical Knowledge to Improve Learners’
  31. Motivational Strategies. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(8), 183–200.
  32. Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a
  33. solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 649–667.
  34. Mashhadi, A., Taghi Farvardin, M., & Mozaffari, A. (2017). Effects of Spaced and Massed Distribution
  35. Instruction on EFL Learners’ Recall and Retention of Grammatical Structures. Teaching English
  36. Language, 11(2), 57–75.
  37. Miles, S. W. (2014). Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for L2 grammar learning. System, 42,
  38. –428.
  39. Mirshekaran, R., Namaziandost, E., & Nazari, M. (2018). The effects of topic interest and L2 proficiency
  40. on writing skill among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(6),
  41. –1276.
  42. Nakata, T., & Suzuki, Y. (2019). Effects of massing and spacing on the learning of semantically related
  43. and unrelated words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 287–311.
  44. Namaziandost, E., Abedi, P., & Nasri, M. (2019). The role of gender in the accuracy and fluency of
  45. Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’ l2 oral productions. Journal of Applied Linguistics and
  46. Language Research, 6(3), 110–123.
  47. Namaziandost, E., Sawalmeh, M. H. M., & Soltanabadi, M. I. (2020). The effects of spaced versus
  48. massed distribution instruction on EFL learners’ vocabulary recall and retention. Cogent Education,
  49. (1), 1792261.
  50. Pavlik Jr, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An
  51. activation‐based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 559–586.
  52. Polyn, S. M., Kragel, J., McCluey, J. D., & Burke, J. F. (2019). Altering the flow of mental time: A test
  53. of retrieved-context theory.
  54. Rohrer, D., & Hartwig, M. K. (2020). Unanswered questions about spaced interleaved mathematics
  55. practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(4), 433.
  56. Serrano, R., & Huang, H. (2018). Learning vocabulary through assisted repeated reading: How much
  57. time should there be between repetitions of the same text? Tesol QUARTERLY, 52(4), 971–994.
  58. Effects of Different Modes of Spacing on Iranian EFL Learners' …
  59. Sewang, A. (2021). Understanding learning outcomes: Comparing the effect of spacing instruction versus
  60. massed instruction. Kıbrıslı Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(1), 328–340.
  61. Slavin, R. E. (2019). Educational psychology: Theory and practice.
  62. Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects in real-world classroom vocabulary
  63. learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 763–767.
  64. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1747
  65. Uchihara, T., Webb, S., & Yanagisawa, A. (2019). The effects of repetition on incidental vocabulary
  66. learning: A meta‐analysis of correlational studies. Language Learning, 69(3), 559–599.
  67. Wegener, S., Wang, H.-C., Beyersmann, E., Nation, K., Colenbrander, D., & Castles, A. (2022). The
  68. effects of spacing and massing on children’s orthographic learning. Journal of Experimental Child
  69. Psychology, 214, 105309.
  70. Wickens, C. D., Helton, W. S., Hollands, J. G., & Banbury, S. (2021). Engineering psychology and
  71. human performance. Routledge.
  72. Wiseheart, M., Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., Weston, T., Kim, A. S. N., Kapler, I. V, & Foot-Seymour, V.
  73. (2019). Enhancing the quality of student learning using distributed practice.