A Multi-Phase Study of Processing Depth: Attentional Mechanisms Underlying Effective Vocabulary Consolidation

Authors

  • Manal Laaribi Mohammed V University, Morocco

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v14i3.17283

Keywords:

Processing depth, Attentional principles, Cognitive mechanisms, Affective mechanisms, Vocabulary consolidation

Abstract

Processing depth is multidimensional; its definition must not overlook the complex cognitive and affective processes involved and their influence in operating memory performance. A clarified account of the mechanisms driving processing depth is needed to extend its application in cognition and language learning. This understanding could provide insights into the effectiveness of language teaching materials and vocabulary learning strategies over others. To serve this purpose, this study investigated the effect of different types of processing depth on vocabulary consolidation, both structural and semantic. Specifically, this study used a mixed-methods approach with a sample of 167 students and progressed through three phases, each building on insights gained from the previous one. The first within-subjects experiment investigated the effect of structural processing and two types of semantic processing on vocabulary consolidation among participants, while semantic outputs produced during the different types of processing were examined to understand the governing principles behind each type. It was revealed that semantic processing was more effective, with distinctiveness particularly associated with improved performance. Building on these findings, the second between-subjects experiment was designed to examine strategy training using vocabulary consolidation strategies reflecting different processing types, complemented by post-training feedback. The third phase focused on model building, developing the Attentive Depth of Processing Model; it posits that attention serves as a pivotal axis around which depth orbits, governed by attentional principles that support long-term consolidation. Overall, this study seeks to understand deep processing principles and provide a basis to improve vocabulary acquisition.

Author Biography

Manal Laaribi, Mohammed V University

Laaribi Manal is a doctoral candidate at Mohamed V University in Rabat in the Language, Culture, and Society program. She holds a Master's degree from the Faculty of Educational Sciences in Rabat in "Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching" and has been teaching English in different institutions for over five years now. She has participated in several study days as a presenter and organizer. Her last participation was on the topic of shyness and social anxiety in the classroom. Manal's research interests lie in applied linguistics, vocabulary acquisition, psycholinguistics, and cognitive psychology.

References

Abbassi, A., Hassaskhah, J., & Tahriri, A. (2018). The effect of teaching memory strategies on Iranian EFL learners' vocabulary retention in terms of learners' multiple intelligences. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.2p.1

Alipour, A., Aerab-sheybani, K., & Akhondy, N. (2012). Effects of handedness and depth of processing on the explicit and implicit memory. In Procedia: Social & Behavioral Sciences, (Vol. 32, pp. 29–33). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.005

Altalhab, S. (2018). Short- and long-term effects of repetition strategies on vocabulary retention. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(2), 146. Australian International Academic Centre. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.2p.146

Barton, E. (2010). Levels of processing: The effects of orthographic, phonologic, and semantic processing on memory. Inquiries Journal.

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.

Chang, S. H. (2017). The effects of test trial and processing level on immediate and delayed retention. In Europe’s Journal of Psychology (Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 129–142). Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID). https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i1.1131

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Longman.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. In Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.

Davoudi, M., & Yousefi, D. (2016). The effect of keyword method on vocabulary retention of senior high school EFL learners in Iran. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(11), 106.

De Jong, T. (2009). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. In Instructional Science (Vol. 38, Issue 2, pp. 105–134). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0

Dewaele, J.-M., & Proietti Ergün, A. L. (2020). How different are the relations between enjoyment, anxiety, attitudes/motivation and course marks in pupils’ Italian and English as foreign languages? In Journal of the European Second Language Association (Vol. 4, Issue 1, p. 45). White Rose University Press. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.65

Dragomir, I.-A., & Niculescu, B.-O. (2022). Shallow and deep processing – An integrated cognitive architecture for foreign language learning. Land Forces Academy Review, 27(3), 216–220. https://doi.org/10.2478/raft-2022-0028

Evans, J. St. B. T. (2012). Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. In Thinking and Reasoning (Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 5–31). Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2011.637674

García-Gámez, A. B., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000456

Ghorbani, M. R., & Riabi, N. K. (2011). The impact of memory strategy instruction on learners’ EFL vocabulary retention. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(9), 1222–1226. Academy Publication. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.9.1222-1226

Greene, N. R., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2022). Effects of divided attention at encoding on specific and gist representations in working and long-term memory. In Journal of Memory and Language (Vol. 126, p. 104340). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104340

Griffiths, M. (2002). The levels of processing effect on memory for words (Doctoral dissertation, Goldsmiths College, University of London

Hashizaki, R. (2024). Does vocalization enhance L2 formulaic sequence learning? Language Teaching Research. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231224040

Hadi, H. U. R., & Guo, X. (2020). A survey of beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies adopted by EFL learners at Shaikh Zayed University. Cogent Education, 7(1).

Hernik, J., & Jaworska, E. (2018). THE EFFECT OF ENJOYMENT ON LEARNING. In INTED Proceedings. 12th International Technology, Education and Development Conference. IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018.1087

Hismanoglu, M. (2000). Language learning strategies in foreign language learning and teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(8).

Hunt, R. R., & Worthen, J. B. (Eds.). (2006). Distinctiveness and Memory. In Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169669.001.0001

Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Spaced repetition promotes efficient and effective learning. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624708

Kang, X., & Wu, Y. (2022). Academic enjoyment, behavioral engagement, self-concept, organizational strategy and achievement in EFL setting: A multiple mediation analysis. In T. Garcia, Public Library of Science (Vol. 17, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267405

Koksal, O. (2013). The impact of the keyword method on vocabulary learning and retention in preparatory French classes in higher education. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(5), 393–400. Progress IPS. https://doi.org/10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-5/b.61

Krishnan, S., Watkins, K. E., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2017). The effect of recall, reproduction, and restudy on word learning: A pre-registered study. BMC Psychology, 5, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-017-0198-8

Lotfolahi, A. R., & Salehi, H. (2016). Learners’ perceptions of the effectiveness of spaced learning schedule in L2 vocabulary learning. SAGE Open, 6(2), 215824401664614. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016646148

Li, C., Dewaele, J.-M., & Jiang, G. (2019). The complex relationship between classroom emotions and EFL achievement in China. In Applied Linguistics Review (Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 485–510). Walter de Gruyter GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0043

Lucardie, D. (2014). The Impact of Fun and Enjoyment on Adult’s Learning. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 142, pp. 439–446). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.696

MacLeod, C. M., Gopie, N., Hourihan, K. L., Neary, K. R., & Ozubko, J. D. (2010). The production effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018785

Mundorf, A. M. D., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Healey, M. K. (2022). Does depth of processing affect temporal contiguity? In Psychonomic Bulletin and Review (Vol. 29, Issue 6, pp. 2229–2239). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02112-1

Murphy, D. H., Schwartz, S. T., & Castel, A. D. (2024). Value-directed retrieval: The effects of divided attention at encoding and retrieval on memory selectivity and retrieval dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 50(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001264

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759

Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Perretta, J. G., & Tonev, S. T. (2000). The Effects of Divided Attention on Encoding and Retrieval Processes: The Resiliency of Retrieval Processes. In The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A (Vol. 53, Issue 3, pp. 609–625). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755914

Ngan, N. T. T. (2022). An investigation of vocabulary learning strategies used by non-English majors at Hong Duc University. Hong Duc University Journal of Science, E7, 12, 113–123.

Patel, D., Jadav, M., & Mathew, S. (2015). Levels of processing. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 2(3). Redshine Publication. https://doi.org/10.25215/0203.030

Piribabadi, A., & Rahmany, R. (2014). The effect of the keyword method and word-list method instruction on ESP vocabulary learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(5), 1110–1115. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.5.1110-1115

Pollack, A. E. (2022). Deep versus Shallow Processing: A Learning and Memory Experiment for Asynchronous and Synchronous Online Platforms. PubMed, (20(2), A146–A149). https://doi.org/10.59390/FEAP4736

Qu, K., Liu, T., Qiao, Y., & Wang, P. (2024). The facilitative effect of the keyword mnemonic on L2 vocabulary retrieval practice. Heliyon, 10(3), Article e25212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25212

Reedy, G. B. (2015). Using Cognitive Load Theory to Inform Simulation Design and Practice. In Clinical Simulation in Nursing (Vol. 11, Issue 8, pp. 355–360). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.05.004

Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2011). Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: A fuzzy-trace model. In Developmental Review. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.004

Sinhaneti, K., & Kyaw, E. K. (2012). A study of the role of rote learning in vocabulary learning strategies of Burmese students. US-China Education Review, 12(12), 987–1005.

Siriganjanavong, V. (2013). The mnemonic keyword method: Effects on vocabulary acquisition and retention. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p1

Sozler, S. (2012). The effect of memory strategy training on vocabulary development of Austrian secondary school students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1348–1352. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.300

Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 119, 176–192.

Tavakoli, M., & Geram, E. (2013). The effect of keyword and pictorial methods on EFL learner’s vocabulary learning and retention. Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras. Editorial de la Universidad de Granada. https://doi.org/10.30827/digibug.20105

Whitehead, P. S., Mahmoud, Y., Seli, P., et al. (2021). Mind wandering at encoding, but not at retrieval, disrupts one-shot stimulus-control learning. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83(6), 2968–2982. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02343-9

Yang, W., & Dai, W. (2011). Rote memorization of vocabulary and vocabulary development. English Language Teaching, 4(4). Canadian Center of Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p61

Zahedi, Y., & Abdi, M. (2012). The effect of semantic mapping strategy on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2273–2280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.198

Downloads

Published

2026-07-17

How to Cite

Laaribi, M. (2026). A Multi-Phase Study of Processing Depth: Attentional Mechanisms Underlying Effective Vocabulary Consolidation. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 14(3), 848–863. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v14i3.17283

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 3 (2026): July

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Manal Laaribi

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  1. They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  2. The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  3. That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  4. That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  5. They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  6. They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching uses a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.