1887
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The aim of the present study was establishing to what extent individual differences in cognitive aptitudes were associated with second language (L2) morphological acquisition under different practice distribution. Sixty participants studied morphological rules of a novel miniature-language system in order to use them for oral production. They engaged in four training sessions in either shorter-spaced learning (twice a week) or longer-spaced learning conditions (once a week). Their oral production performance both during and after the training was related to their metalinguistic rule rehearsal ability (MRRA) and working memory capacity (WMC). Multiple regression analyses revealed that MRRA predicted learners’ training and posttest performance mainly under the longer-spaced condition, while WMC played a limited role at best under both learning conditions. These results suggest that practice distribution may be individualized based on learners’ aptitude strengths to optimize L2 morphological learning.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.18023.suz
2019-10-08
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, J. R.
    (2015) Cognitive psychology and its implications (8th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bender, R., & Lange, S.
    (2001) Adjusting for multiple testing – when and how?Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 343–349. 10.1016/S0895‑4356(00)00314‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00314-0 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y.
    (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 289–300. 10.1111/j.2517‑6161.1995.tb02031.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bird, S.
    (2010) Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635–650. 10.1017/S0142716410000172
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000172 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bloom, K. C., & Shuell, T. J.
    (1981) Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. The Journal of Educational Research, 74, 245–248. 10.1080/00220671.1981.10885317
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1981.10885317 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carpenter, S. K., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H.
    (2012) Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 369–378. doi:  10.1007/s10648‑012‑9205‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9205-z [Google Scholar]
  7. Carroll, J. B.
    (1981) Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. InK. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp.83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D.
    (2006) Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.132.3.354
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H.
    (2008) Spacing effects in learning a temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19, 1095–1102. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02209.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E.
    (1977) Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DeKeyser, R. M.
    (2012) Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in sla. Language Learning, 62, 189–200. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00712.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00712.x [Google Scholar]
  12. DeKeyser, R. M., & Koeth, J.
    (2010) Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol.2, pp.395–406). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S.
    (2015) The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315779553
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315779553 [Google Scholar]
  14. Doughty, C. J.
    (2019) Cognitive language aptitude. Language Learning, 69, 101–126. doi:  10.1111/lang.12322
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12322 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, N. C., & Schmidt, R.
    (1997) Morphology and longer distance dependencies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 145–171. 10.1017/S0272263197002027
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002027 [Google Scholar]
  16. Erlam, R.
    (2005) Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–172. 10.1191/1362168805lr161oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr161oa [Google Scholar]
  17. Field, A.
    (2009) Discovering statistics using SPPS. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C.
    (2003) DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. doi:  10.3758/BF03195503
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195503 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goo, J.
    (2012) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474. 10.1017/S0272263112000149
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000149 [Google Scholar]
  20. Granena, G.
    (2013) Cognitive aptitudes for L2 learning and the llama language aptitude test. InG. Granena, & Long, M. H. (Ed.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp.105–130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.35.04gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.35.04gra [Google Scholar]
  21. (2016) Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 577–600. 10.1017/S0142716415000120
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000120 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kempe, V., & Brooks, P. J.
    (2008) Second language learning of complex inflectional systems. Language Learning, 58, 703–746. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00477.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00477.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Kim, J. W., Ritter, F. E., & Koubek, R. J.
    (2013) An integrated theory for improved skill acquisition and retention in the three stages of learning. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 14, 22–37. 10.1080/1464536X.2011.573008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1464536X.2011.573008 [Google Scholar]
  24. Li, S.
    (2013) The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.12030.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408. 10.1093/applin/amu054
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu054 [Google Scholar]
  26. Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., … Doughty, C. J.
    (2013) Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566. 10.1111/lang.12011
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F.
    (2014) Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883. 10.3758/s13423‑013‑0565‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Meara, P. M.
    (2005) Llama language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea, UK: Lognostics. Retrieved from www.lognostics.co.uk/tools/llama/llama_manual.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Miles, S. W.
    (2014) Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for L2 grammar learning. System, 42, 412–428. 10.1016/j.system.2014.01.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.014 [Google Scholar]
  30. Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. C. M.
    (2014) Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 56–72. 10.1017/S1366728912000715
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000715 [Google Scholar]
  31. Nakata, T.
    (2015) Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary learning: Does gradually increasing spacing increase vocabulary learning?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 677–711. 10.1017/S0272263114000825
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000825 [Google Scholar]
  32. Robinson, P.
    (1997) Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult sla. Language Learning, 47, 45–99. 10.1111/0023‑8333.21997002
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.21997002 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2007) Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. InR. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp.256–286). New York, NY: Cambridge Universtiy Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667275.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.015 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rogers, J.
    (2015) Learning second language syntax under massed and distributed conditions. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 857–866. 10.1002/tesq.252
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.252 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sanz, C., Lin, H.-J., Lado, B., Stafford, C. A., & Bowden, H. W.
    (2016) One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics, 37, 669–692. 10.1093/applin/amu058
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu058 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sasaki, M.
    (1993) Relationships among second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning, 43, 313–344. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1993.tb00617.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00617.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Serafini, E. J., & Sanz, C.
    (2016) Evidence for the decreasing impact of cognitive ability on second language development as proficiency increases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 607–646. 10.1017/S0272263115000327
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000327 [Google Scholar]
  38. Serrano, R., & Huang, H. Y.
    (2018) Learning vocabulary through assisted repeated reading: How much time should there be between repetitions of the same text?TESOL Quarterly, 52, 971–994. 10.1002/tesq.445
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.445 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sheen, Y.
    (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on esl learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2002) Theorising and updating aptitude. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp.69–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.2.06ske
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.06ske [Google Scholar]
  42. (2016) Foreign language aptitude, acquisitional sequences, and psycholinguistic processes. InG. Granena, D. O. Jackson, & Y. Yilmaz (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp.17–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bpa.3.02ske
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.3.02ske [Google Scholar]
  43. Snow, R. E.
    (1987) Aptitude complexes. InR. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction (pp.13–59). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Suzuki, Y.
    (2017) The optimal distribution of practice for the acquisition of L2 morphology: A conceptual replication and extension. Language Learning, 67, 512–545. 10.1111/lang.12236
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12236 [Google Scholar]
  45. Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. M.
    (2017a) Effects of distributed practice on the proceduralization of morphology. Language Teaching Research, 21, 166–188. 10.1177/1362168815617334
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815617334 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2017b) Exploratory research on L2 practice distribution: An aptitude x treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 27–56. 10.1017/S0142716416000084
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000084 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S.
    (2007) Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, E.
    (2014) About practice: Repetition, spacing, and abstraction. The Psychology of Learning & Motivation, 60, 113–189. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑800090‑8.00004‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800090-8.00004-4 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ullman, M. T.
    (2015) The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically-motivated theory of first and second language. InB. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp.135–158). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ullman, M. T., & Lovelett, J. T.
    (2018) Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Language Research, 34, 39–65. 10.1177/0267658316675195
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316675195 [Google Scholar]
  51. Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W.
    (2005) An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. 10.3758/BF03192720
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720 [Google Scholar]
  52. Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S., & Doughty, C.
    (2013) Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. InG. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp.273–292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.35.11vat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.35.11vat [Google Scholar]
  53. Wesche, M.
    (1981) Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. InK. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp.119–154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Yalçın, Ş., & Spada, N.
    (2016) Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 239–263. 10.1017/S0272263115000509
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000509 [Google Scholar]
  55. Yilmaz, Y.
    (2013) Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368. 10.1093/applin/ams044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams044 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.18023.suz
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.18023.suz
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error