Language Teaching Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register for SAGE Language and Linguistics journals

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bruton, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Language Teaching Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, 413-431 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1362168807080961

Vocabulary learning from dictionary referencing and language feedback in EFL translational writing

Anthony Bruton

University of Seville, Spain, abruton{at}siff.us.es

A significant, but rarely posed, question in EFL writing is what new language the writers assimilate from the process. In this study, a group of intermediate EFL students in a state secondary school in Spain completed an L1(Spanish)-to-FL(English) written translation task on their own, with bilingual dictionary/glossary support. Three days later, this group received feedback on the vocabulary errors in their initial translations, consisting of giving the initial letters and dashes for the remaining letters of the correct word. They had to rewrite the initial translation with corrections, using the glossary support. A week after that, they were unexpectedly asked to translate the same text again without dictionary support or the previous translations, in a delayed post-test. The group looked up 158 items initially of which 148 or 94% were correct. Of these 148 items 106 or 72% were correctly recalled in the delayed post-test. Of the 136 items that were initially incorrect, 71 or 52% were also recalled. In total the students made mean gains of 13.6 vocabulary items. Not only is this result encouraging, but the analysis shows that a focus purely on errors is misleading as it does not reveal language gains.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?