Cover not available
Part of
Aptitude-Treatment Interaction in Second Language Learning
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser
[Benjamins Current Topics 116] 2021
► pp. 33–68

The interaction between timing of explicit grammar explanation and individual differences in second language acquisition

 | Independent Researcher, Skopje, North Macedonia
 | University of Maryland, College Park
Despite numerous positive findings of explicit instruction, this topic continues to engage scholars worldwide. One issue that may be crucial for the effectiveness of explicit instruction is the interaction between cognitive individual differences (language aptitude and working memory) and types of instruction. In this experiment, 128 learners of Spanish were randomly assigned to four experimental treatments and completed comprehension-based practice for interpreting object-verb and ser/estar sentences in Spanish. Results revealed that the various combinations of rules and practice posed differential task demands on the learners and consequently drew on language aptitude and working memory to a different extent. We argue that not only are rules and practice both necessary, but that their suitable integration ameliorates task demands, reducing the burden on the learner, and accordingly mitigates the role of participants’ individual differences, thus making a substantial difference for the learning of second language grammar.
Keywords: language aptitude, working memory, aptitude-treatment interaction, explicit instruction, individual differences, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, skill acquisition theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background literature and theoretical motivation
    • 2.1Language learning aptitude in the narrow sense
    • 2.2Working memory
    • 2.3Skill Acquisition Theory
  • 3.The present study
    • 3.1Method
      • 3.1.1Participants
      • 3.1.2Linguistic targets: OV structure and Ser/ Estar
      • 3.1.3Research design
      • 3.1.4Materials
      • 3.1.5Treatment
    • 3.2Instruments
      • 3.2.1Comprehension tests
      • 3.2.2Production test
      • 3.2.3LLAMA F
      • 3.2.4OSPAN
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Data analysis (Tables in Appendix)
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1OV
      • 4.1.1Comprehension
      • 4.1.2Production
      • 4.1.3GJT
    • 4.2SER
      • 4.2.1Comprehension
      • 4.2.2Production
      • 4.2.3GJT
    • 4.3Summary of results
    • 4.4Simple linear regression models following significant correlations between IDs and outcome measures
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • 6.Limitations and future directions
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
  • Appendix
Published online: 21 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.116.03kac
References (99)
References
Ackerman, P. L. (1990). A correlational analysis of skill specificity: Learning, abilities, and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(5), 883.Google Scholar
(1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(3), 288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1322.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1997). The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 932.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), R136–R140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C., Devescovi, A., Natale, F., & Venza, V. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55, 341–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning – output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 67–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes, (Ed.) Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Biedroń, A., & Pawlak, M. (2016). The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case of cognitive factors and personality. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 395–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Kempe, V., & Sionov, A. (2006). The role of learner and input variables in learning inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(2), 185–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Daily, L. Z., Lovett, M. C., & Reder, L. M. (1998). Cross-task prediction of working memory performance: Working memory capacity as source activation. In Sixth Annual ACT-R Workshop, Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(02), 249–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(02), 195–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practic- ing second language grammar. In C. D. J. Williams (Ed.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2007). (Ed.). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62(s2), 189–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2013). Age effects in second language learning: Stepping stones toward better understanding. Language Learning, 63(Suppl. 1), 52–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill Acquisition Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–113). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 395–406). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Criado-Sánchez, R. (2012). Automatization, skill acquisition, and practice in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 323–331). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., Campbell, S., Bunting, M., Bowles, A., & Haarmann, H. (2007). The development of the high-level language aptitude battery. Center for Advanced Study of Language Technical Report (TTO 2105 M. 4). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 19–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 242–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. (2004a). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2004b). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitts, P. M. (1964). Perceptual-motor skill learning. Categories of Human Learning, 47, 381–391.Google Scholar
French, L. M. & O’Brien, I. (2008). Phonological memory and children’s second language grammar learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 463–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1989). Language universals and second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 39(4), 497–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Reexamining the robustness of aptitude in second language acquisition. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.). Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 25–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henry, N., Culman, H., & Vanpatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA . A partial replication and a response to Fernández (2008). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huitema, B. (2011). The analysis of covariance and alternatives. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. W. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 Learning. Language Teaching: Reviews and Studies, 42(2), 137–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 261–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., Stafford, C. A., & Sanz, C. (2014). A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 320–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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(3), 634–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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(3), 530–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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(4), 861–883. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lovett, M. C., Reder, L. M., & Lebiere, C. (1997). Modeling individual differences in a digit working memory task. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 460–465).Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 263–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 321–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M. García Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60(3), 501–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological STM and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 379–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. (2014). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 56–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexical, narrative, and grammatical skills in second language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). Phonological short-term memory and foreign-language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 331–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y., & Wong, P. C. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 461–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Presson, N., MacWhinney, B., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Learning grammatical gender: The use of rules by novice learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(4), 709–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto Botana, G. (2013). The role of task-essentialness and explicit information in processing instruction (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom. Individual differences and instructed language learning, 159–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral production abilities: The awareness, practice, and feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehling, J., Demiral, B., Lebiere, C., Lovett, M., & Reder, L. M. (2003). Modeling individual difference factors in a complex task environment. In F. Detje, D. Doerner, & H. Schaub (Eds.), In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (pp. 287–288). Bamberg: Universitats-Verlag.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 223–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 256–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sallas, B., Mathews, R. C., Lane, S. M., & Sun, R. (2007). Developing rich and quickly accessed knowledge of an artificial grammar. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 2118–2133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C., Lin, H. J., Lado, B., Stafford, C. A., & Bowden, H. W. (2014). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 669–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to learning language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015a). Working memory and second language performance: A commentary. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 189–202). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36, 367–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1989). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In P. L. Ackerman, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.), A series of books in psychology. Learning and individual differences: Advances in theory and research (pp. 13–59). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and yype of language reature: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stafford, C. A., Bowden, H. W., & Sanz, C. (2012). Optimizing language instruction: Matters of explicitness, practice, and cue learning. Language Learning, 62(3), 741–768. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitude. Language Learning, 67, 747–790. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taatgen, N. A. (2001). A model of individual differences in learning air traffic control. In E. M. Altmann, A. Cleeremans, C. D. Schunn, & W. D. Gray (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 fourth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (pp. 211–216). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Taatgen, N. A., & Wallach, D. (2002). Whether skill acquisition is rule or instance based is determined by the structure of the task. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(2), 163–204.Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., & Borges, M. (2015). Working memory, learning conditions and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 224–247). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1987). Classroom learners’ acquisition of ser and estar: Accounting for developmental patterns. In B. VanPatten, T. R. Dvorak, & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 61–75). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. In J. Spence, J. Darly, & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 513–539). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. & Doughty, C. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wesche, M. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119–154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(01), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187–205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar