Randomized trial investigates modality effects on word learning in fifth graders, suggesting different impacts on lexical acquisition.
The process through which a word transitions from unknown to known has been described as involving two processes. First, Lexical Configuration, referring to the rapid acquisition of word-form knowledge (e.g., orthography, phonology, meaning) following initial exposure. Second, Lexicalization, which describes the interaction of the newly learned word with existing words as a result of its integration into the mental lexicon. Novel words can first be encountered either orally or in writing and previous studies have suggested that modality plays a role in word learning. However, specific contributions of oral versus written input during lexical development remain unclear. Furthermore, most of the studies have been carried out with adults. The present study addresses these gaps. Fourth and fifth graders (N = 107) were trained on rare novel words and assessed immediately after learning, to measure lexical configuration via recognition tasks, and again one week later, to measure lexicalization via lexical decision tasks and semantic priming. In this way, we traced how orthographic, phonological, and semantic representations developed over time under each modality. Results suggest that integration of lexical representations involves different contributions from oral and written modalities to the two word-learning processes. Our findings indicate that orthographic input is particularly effective for acquiring the formal aspects of words, whereas oral input appears to promote stronger semantic integration, as reflected in significantly greater semantic priming over time. These results offer insights into how learning modality shapes lexical development and provide theoretical and practical considerations for research in word learning and vocabulary teaching practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vargas-Cuevas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: