8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Learning English through out-of-school exposure. Which levels of language proficiency are attained and which types of input are important?

      , ,
      Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
      Cambridge University Press (CUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this study we examined the level of English proficiency children can obtain through out-of-school exposure in informal contexts prior to English classroom instruction. The second aim was to determine the input types that fuel children's informal language acquisition. Language learning was investigated in 780 Dutch-speaking children (aged 10–12), who were tested on their English receptive vocabulary knowledge, listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. Information about learner characteristics and out-of-school English exposure was gathered using questionnaires. The results show large language gains for a substantial number of children but also considerable individual differences. The most beneficial types of input were gaming, use of social media and speaking. These input types are interactive and multimodal and they involve language production. We also found that the various language tests largely measure the same proficiency component.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The production effect: delineation of a phenomenon.

          In 8 recognition experiments, we investigated the production effect-the fact that producing a word aloud during study, relative to simply reading a word silently, improves explicit memory. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 showed the effect to be restricted to within-subject, mixed-list designs in which some individual words are spoken aloud at study. Because the effect was not evident when the same repeated manual or vocal overt response was made to some words (Experiment 4), producing a subset of studied words appears to provide additional unique and discriminative information for those words-they become distinctive. This interpretation is supported by observing a production effect in Experiment 5, in which some words were mouthed (i.e., articulated without speaking); in Experiment 6, in which the materials were pronounceable nonwords; and even in Experiment 7, in which the already robust generation effect was incremented by production. Experiment 8 incorporated a semantic judgment and showed that the production effect was not due to "lazy reading" of the words studied silently. The distinctiveness that accrues to the records of produced items at the time of study is useful at the time of test for discriminating these produced items from other items. The production effect represents a simple but quite powerful mechanism for improving memory for selected information. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do Things Fall Apart?.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
                Bilingualism
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                1366-7289
                1469-1841
                January 2020
                February 18 2019
                January 2020
                : 23
                : 1
                : 171-185
                Article
                10.1017/S1366728918001062
                39697825
                2c23d91a-5bcf-44cf-8eb2-d8276a319184
                © 2020

                https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

                https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article