Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41052105›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Effects of word length, contextual support, and prior second language proficiency on the learning of technical words in a second language.

Jie Wang, Yen Na Yum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jie WangDepartment of Psychology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yen Na YumDepartment of Special Education and Counselling, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2165-6813

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Second language (L2) learners often struggle with learning technical words in a new discipline. Previous studies suggested that word length and context may differentially affect orthographic and semantic acquisition during initial L2 word learning. This study investigated how (1) target word length, (2) contextual support, and (3) learners' L2 vocabulary and spelling abilities influence orthographic and semantic recognition in initial acquisition of L2 technical words. Eighty-eight Chinese-English university students read sentences with high- and low-constraint contexts about sixteen L2 English technical words and then performed orthographic and semantic recognition tasks. Recognition accuracy was examined through multiple-choice questions with fully and partially correct answer choices and analyzed with generalized linear mixed-effects models. Results showed that longer word length impaired orthographic recognition but facilitated partial semantic recognition, while contextual support enhanced semantic but not orthographic learning of L2 technical words. Skilled spellers performed better on orthographic recognition than poorer spellers, while those with larger L2 vocabulary size also showed better orthographic learning, especially for shorter word forms. Hence, word length, contextual support, and learners' L2 vocabulary and spelling abilities differentially affected orthographic and semantic learning of L2 technical words, and measurement of partial recognition facilitated a nuanced understanding of learning outcomes. The findings highlight the importance of adopting targeted pedagogical approaches to enhance L2 technical word learning.

Indexed as

LearningMultilingualismVocabularyAdultFemaleHumansLanguageMaleReadingSemanticsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41052105
PMCPMC12500150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.