Computerized Task-Based Exposure, Explicitness, Type of Feedback, and Spanish L2 Development

This study examined whether exposure to second/foreign language (L2) data under different computerized task conditions had a differential impact on learners' ability to recognize and produce the target structure immediately after exposure to the input and over time. Learners' L2 development was assessed through recognition and controlled-production tests containing old and new exemplars of the target structure. Adult learners of Spanish were exposed to past conditional sentences under 1 of 6 conditions premised on different degrees of explicitness. The degree of explicitness was manipulated by combining 3 features: (a) a pretask providing explicit grammatical information, (b) feedback concurrent to input processing, and (c) variation in the nature (i.e., implicit or explicit) of the feedback in those cases in which it was provided. The advantages of processing input under explicit conditions were evident (a) in production more than in recognition and (b) in new exemplars more than in old exemplars.

[1]  Rick de Graaff,et al.  THE EXPERANTO EXPERIMENT , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[2]  P. Lightbown,et al.  Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching , 1990, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[3]  Noriko Nagata,et al.  Computer vs. Workbook Instruction in Second Language Acquisition , 2013, CALICO Journal.

[4]  Lydia White.  Against Comprehensible Input: the Input Hypothesis and the Development of Second-language Competence1 , 1987 .

[5]  P. Robinson.  Learning Simple and Complex Second Language Rules Under Implicit, Incidental, Rule-Search, and Instructed Conditions , 1996, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[6]  A. Reber.  Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional set. , 1976 .

[7]  R. Leow.  Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) finegrained analysis of attention , 1998, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[8]  J H Howard,et al.  Syntactic and semantic factors in the classification of nonspeech transient patterns , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  K. Morgan‐Short,et al.  TO THINK ALOUD OR NOT TO THINK ALOUD: The Issue of Reactivity in SLA Research Methodology , 2004, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[10]  K. Morgan‐Short,et al.  Positive Evidence Versus Explicit Rule Presentation and Explicit Negative Feedback: A Computer-Assisted Study. , 2004 .

[11]  G. Logan.  Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[12]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Down the Garden Path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom , 1988, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[13]  B. Vanpatten,et al.  Explanation versus Structured Input in Processing Instruction , 1996, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[14]  Peter Robinson,et al.  Task Complexity and Second Language Narrative Discourse , 1995 .

[15]  P. Robinson.  GENERALIZABILITY AND AUTOMATICITY OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING UNDER IMPLICIT, INCIDENTAL, ENHANCED, AND INSTRUCTED CONDITIONS , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[16]  R. Leow.  The Effects of Amount and Type of Exposure on Adult Learners' L2 Development in SLA , 1998 .

[17]  Bill VanPatten,et al.  Explicit Instruction and Input Processing , 1993, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[18]  R. A. Carlson,et al.  A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? , 1984 .

[19]  Richard A. Carlson,et al.  On consciousness in syntactic learning and judgment: A reply to Reber, Allen, and Regan , 1985 .

[20]  N. Ellis.  Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge , 1993 .

[21]  M. Swain,et al.  Explicit and Implicit Negative Feedback , 1993, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[22]  Ronald P. Leow,et al.  Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development , 2004, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[23]  R. Dekeyser,et al.  BEYOND EXPLICIT RULE LEARNING , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[24]  J. Norris,et al.  Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta‐analysis , 2000 .

[25]  Cristina Sanz.  Implementing LIBRA for the design of experimental research in Second Language Acquisition , 2000 .

[26]  Peter Robinson,et al.  Individual Differences and the Fundamental Similarity of Implicit and Explicit Adult Second Language Learning , 1997 .

[27]  Noriko Nagata,et al.  INPUT VS. OUTPUT PRACTICE IN EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE FOR SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 2005 .

[28]  S. Fotos.  Consciousness Raising and Noticing through Focus on Form: Grammar Task Performance versus Formal Instruction , 1993 .

[29]  E. Rosa,et al.  EXPLICITNESS, INTAKE, AND THE ISSUE OF AWARENESS , 1999, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[30]  P. Robinson.  Attention, Memory, and the “Noticing” Hypothesis , 1995 .

[31]  Teresa Cadierno.  Formal Instruction from a Processing Perspective: An Investigation into the Spanish Past Tense , 1995 .

[32]  Lydia White.  Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom , 1991 .

[33]  Robert DeKeyser,et al.  Learning Second Language Grammar Rules , 1995, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[34]  J. Laver,et al.  Myelodysplasia Associated with Turner Syndrome , 1996, Journal of pediatric hematology/oncology.

[35]  Ronald P. Leow,et al.  Do Learners Notice Enhanced Forms While Interacting with the L2?: An Online and Offline Study of the Role of Written Input Enhancement in L2 Reading , 2001 .

[36]  R. Leow.  Attention, Awareness, and Foreign Language Behavior , 1997 .

[37]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Feedback for Language Transfer Errors , 1989, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[38]  R. Leow.  A STUDY OF THE ROLE OF AWARENESS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR , 2000, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.