Document Type : research paper


1 University of Zanjan

2 Zanjan University of Medical Sciences


Attempting to improve teaching instructions, researchers have proposed numerous instructional techniques. In vocabulary learning as one of the key areas in EFL, inadequate knowledge leads to complications and frequently faces the learners with challenges. This study explores how an instructional technique that employs semantic, structural, and semantic/structural elaboration affects vocabulary learning. The research was carried out with 114 participants who experienced the mentioned elaborations in three groups. For creating a +semantic, +structural, and +semantic/structural climate in each group, participants were given flashcards containing words beside the equivalents, words by numbered letters without any equivalents, and words by numbered letters beside the equivalents, respectively. The data—obtained from Lexical Production Scoring Protocol (LPSP)—were then input into One-way ANOVA and Post-hoc tests. To check the accuracy of Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP) theory, different tasks during the teaching and testing phases in +semantic were designed. Due to this inconsistency, the findings proved to be in line with TAP theory, suggesting that Level of Processing (LOP) theory should be accompanied with TAP to end in facilitating results. Data analysis -mirroring the Type of Processing–Resource Allocation (TOPRA) effect- indicated that while the +semantic as compared to +semantic/structural facilitated performance on recall of words, had a negative effect in comparison with +structural. Based on the results, the limited processing resources remind curriculum developers to bear in mind which aspect of learning is of more importance to let the learners make the most and best use of their inborn gifts.


Ahmadi, M. (2014). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 vocabulary learning and retention. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98,109-115.

Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language learning, 52(2), 323-363.
Barcroft, J. (2004). Effects of sentence writing in second language lexical acquisition. Second Language Research, 20(4), 303-334. /10.1191/0267658304sr233oa.
Barcroft, J. (2021). Input, tasks, and processing specificity in Spanish vocabulary learning. In Spanish Vocabulary Learning in MeaningOriented Instruction (pp. 26-43). Routledge.
Coomber, J. E., Ramstad, D. A., & Sheets, D. R. (1986). Elaboration in vocabulary learning: A comparison of three rehearsal methods.
Research in the Teaching of English, 20(3), 281-293.
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,11(6), 671-684.
Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294.
García-Gámez, A., & Macizo, P. (2022). Lexical and semantic training to acquire words in a foreign language: An electrophysiological study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(5), 768-785. doi:10.1017/S1366728921000456.
Hyde, T. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (1969). Differential effects of incidental tasks on the organization of recall of a list of highly associated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82(3), 472–481.
Kida, S. (2022). Secondary task type, exposure frequency, and their combined effects on second language vocabulary learning through
reading. Second Language Research, 38(2), 213-232.
Kida, S., & Barcroft, J. (2018). Semantic and structural tasks for the mapping component of l2 vocabulary learning: Testing the TOPRA model from a new angle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 477-502. doi:10.1017/S0272263117000146.
Kida, S., Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. (2022). Word learning and lexicalization in a second language: Evidence from the Prime
lexicality effect in masked form priming. Memory & Cognition, 50, 1414–1431.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. McGraw-Hill.
Levin, J. R., McCormick, C. B., Miller, G. E., Berry, J. K., & Pressley, M. (1982). Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning
strategies for children. American Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 121-136.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519-533.
Nation, I. S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language (Vol. 10). Cambridge University Press.
Nokes, T. J., & Ash, I. K. (2009). Investigating the role of instructional focus in incidental pattern learning. The Journal of General Psychology: Experimental, Psychological, and Comparative Psychology, 137(1), 84-113.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80(4), 478-493.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, M. H., & Dieter, J. N. (1987). The positive effects of writing practice on integration of foreign words in memory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79(3), 249-253.
Tresselt, M. E., & Mayzner, M. S. (1960). A study of incidental learning. The Journal of Psychology, 50(2), 339-347.
Trofimovich, P. (2008). What do second language listeners know about spoken words? Effects of experience and attention in spoken word processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(5), 309-329. DOI 10.1007/s10936-008-9069-z.
VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. McGraw-Hill.