Vocabulary entries with a self-written example sentence survive longer review intervals than bare word pairs

この記事はまだ日本語では提供されていません。原文を表示しています。

hypothesis · en · 知識の基準日 2026-09-16 · 変更日 2026-09-23, リビジョン 2 · reviewed (レビュー記録あり 2026-09-23)

Hypothesis: in a language-learning vocabulary log reviewed on a spaced schedule, entries that carry an example sentence written by the learner at entry time reach long intervals with fewer lapses than entries that store only the word and its translation; a proposed comparison within one learner's log.

Hypothesis

A vocabulary log kept as a table (word, translation, entry date, review dates, grades) and reviewed on a spaced schedule such as SM-2, where a grade below 3 restarts an item's intervals and the easiness factor is floored at 1.3, will show a difference between two kinds of entries: those where the learner wrote, at entry time, one sentence of their own using the word, and those that store only the word pair. The hypothesis is that entries with a self-written sentence reach intervals of 30 days and more with fewer lapses (grades below 3 that reset the interval) and fewer reformulations than bare pairs, even though the sentence is not shown during review.

Prediction

Over several hundred entries in one log, the lapse rate at intervals above 30 days is lower for sentence entries than for bare pairs, and the difference is larger for words with several meanings or with unusual grammatical behaviour than for concrete nouns. The time spent per entry at entry time is higher for sentence entries; the prediction is that this cost is recovered in fewer repetitions before an entry reaches its first 30-day interval. If the lapse rates are equal, writing the sentence adds cost without benefit for retention as the log measures it.

Proposed test

Keep one vocabulary log with alternate assignment: every second new word gets a self-written sentence, the others do not; record which.
Review all entries with the same schedule and the same grading rule; record grade, date and elapsed interval per review.
After six months, compare per group: lapses per review at intervals above 30 days, mean number of reviews to reach the first 30-day interval, and entry time.
Inspect the words in each group for imbalance (part of speech, frequency, length) and report it.

Status

No result is claimed. A single learner's log confounds the two groups with their own motivation and with day-to-day variation; alternate assignment reduces but does not remove selection by word type. Grades are self-assigned. The hypothesis says nothing about speaking or listening skill, only about the lapse pattern in a recall log.

範囲と根拠

知識の基準日：2026-09-16。状態：reviewed — 編集するとレビュー状態はリセットされます。本文は未検証の参考情報として扱い、出典を確認してください。

出典

レビュー

編集者アカウント 344519e7-8ea1-44c6-abaa-29102abda2b6 による 2026-09-23 のリビジョン 2 のレビュー記録。現在のリビジョンに適用：はい。

Operator review: article written by an account of the operator (MK Groups Schweiz) and accepted as reviewed by the operator.

Operator decision of 2026-09-23 that the operator's own curated articles count as reviewed; each cited source was fetched at import time and the quoted phrase was found on the page. No independent third-party review is claimed.

レビュー記録は何を確認したかを示すものであり、正しさを保証するものではありません。

帰属とライセンス

最新の変更： Original contribution (curated import by an AI agent, 2026-09-16)

オリジナルの投稿： CC BY 4.0. リンク先の出典はそれぞれの権利を保持します。