User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > The Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education > Volume 14 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effects of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 202–232.
  • Allen, L. Q. (1992). Foreign language curriculum for the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 15(6), 12–15.
  • Arnett, J. (1995). Creating an interactive Spanish alphabet program for the primary bilingual classroom: A cooperative multimedia project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.
  • Aust, R., Kelley, M. J., & Roby W. (1993). The use of hyperreference and conventional dictionaries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 63–73.
  • Bartz, W. (1982). The role of foreign language education for the gifted and talented students: A position paper. National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages. Foreign Language Annals, 15(5), 329–334.
  • Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bensoussan, M., Sim, D. & Weiss, R. (1984). The effect of dictionary use on EFL test performance compared with student and teacher attitudes and expectations. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 262–276.
  • Brickman, W. W. (1988). The multilingual development of the gifted. Roeper Review, 10, 247–250.
  • Carlson, N. (1981). An exploratory study of characteristics of gifted and talented foreign language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 14(5), 385–391.
  • Cavalieri, T. A. (1987). A study of student media production as a process skill for improving content retention following instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(08), 1968A.
  • Channell, J. (1988). Psycholinguistic considerations in the study of L2 vocabulary acquisition. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 83–96). New York: Longman.
  • Chapman, P. (1988). Schools as sorters: Lewis M. Terman, applied psychology, and the intelligence testing movement. New York: New York University Press.
  • Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80, 183–212.
  • Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
  • Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (1997). Introduction and overview. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 3–9). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Programs for the gifted few or talent development for the many? Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 735–738.
  • Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.
  • Gallagher J. J. (1998). Accountability for gifted students. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 739–742.
  • Garfinkel, A., Allen, L. Q., Neuhart-Prtichett, S. (1993). Foreign language for the gifted: Extending affective dimensions. Roeper Review, 15, 235–238.
  • Garfinkel, A., & Prentice, M. (1985). Foreign language for the gifted: Extending cognitive dimensions. ERIC, ED 262 641.
  • Grace, C. A. (2000). Gender differences: Vocabulary acquisition and access to translations for beginning language learners in CALL. Modern Language Journal, 84, 214–224.
  • Horowitz, F., & O’Brien, M. (1986). Gifted and talented children: State of knowledge and directions for research. American Psychologist, 41, 1147–1152.
  • Hulstijn, J. H. (2000). The use of computer technology in experimental studies of second language acquisition: A survey of some techniques and some ongoing studies. Language Learning and Technology, 3(2), 32–43.
  • Jones, L. C. (in press). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition with multimedia annotations: What the students say! Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Kerry, T. (1987). Primary topics and the able child. Gifted Education International, 4, 167–168.
  • Kerry, T., & Kerry, C. A. (1999). The dangers of differentiation. Gifted Education International, 13, 239–242.
  • Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal, 78, 285–299.
  • Kramsch, C., A’Ness, F., & Lam, W. S. E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in the computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning and Technology, 4(2), 78–104.
  • Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 441–464.
  • Kubota, R. (1999). Word processing and WWW projects in a college Japanese language class. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 205–218.
  • Laufer, B., & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and “bilingualized” dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. Modern Language Journal, 81, 189–196.
  • Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning and Technology, 3(2), 58–76.
  • Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285.
  • Meara, P. (1995). Single-subjects studies of lexical acquisition. Second Language Research, 11(2), i–iii.
  • Nikolova, O. R. (2000). Affective aspects of student authoring for foreign language learning. ReCALL, 12, 129–143.
  • Nikolova , O. R. (2002). Effects of students’ participation in authoring of multimedia materials on student acquisition of vocabulary. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 100–122.
  • Oakes, J. C. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Plass, J., Chun, D., Mayer, R., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 25–36.
  • Pouwels, J. B. (1988). International potpourri: Foreign languages for the gifted and talented in Arkansas. Foreign Language Annals, 21(2), 147–151.
  • Renzulli, J. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Robinson, P. (1995). Review article: Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.
  • Roby, W. B. (1999). “What’s in a gloss?” Language Learning and Technology, 2(2), 94–101.
  • Rogers, K. B. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal of the Education for the Gifted, 10, 17–39.
  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
  • Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129–137.
  • Stevens, J. (1990). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (1987). A case for the teaching of Latin to the verbally talented. Roeper Review, 9, 159–161.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Wielkoszewski, G. H. (1992, November/December). Why foreign language for the gifted? Gifted Child Today, 15(6), 28–30.
  • Winner, E. (1997). Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling. American Psychologist, 52, 1070–1081.
  • Zahorik, J.A. (1995). Constructivist teaching. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 14
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2003



The Impact of a Language Learning Task on Instructional Outcomes in Two Student Populations: High-Ability and Average-Ability Students

Ofélia Nikolova and Gregory Taylor

This article examines the use of two different Spanish language learning tasks for students identified as high ability and average ability. Students were asked to read a short passage in Spanish on a computer screen and either use the glosses already provided for certain words to aid in comprehension (the control group) or create glosses for the same target words using a Spanish-English dictionary and annotation software (the experimental group). Next, they were asked to write a synopsis of the story in their own words in English and were also given an unannounced vocabulary recall test. They were retested 1 month later for vocabulary recall. High-ability students performed significantly better with the experimental task than with the control task on the vocabulary test, while average-ability learners showed no difference for recall between the two tasks. For reading comprehension, the complex nature of the experimental task seems to have created difficulties for average-ability learners, who scored substantially lower than the other groupings. Experimental average-ability students recalled significantly fewer words on the delayed recall test, as well, again suggesting a detrimental effect of the task on word retention for this group.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.