The role of explicit language aptitude in implicit, explicit, and mixed feedback conditions
This study examined whether there is any relationship between second language (L2) learning outcomes under different negative feedback conditions and cognitive abilities for language learning that involve explicit cognitive processes (i.e. explicit language aptitude). The study followed a pretest, immediate posttest, delayed posttest design, and used a set of controlled oral production tests as outcome measures. Between the pretest and the immediate posttest, 80 L2 learners of English carried out three oral production tasks, in which their errors on the indefinite article were treated according to the group they had been assigned to (i.e. explicit, implicit, mixed, reduced explicit or no-feedback). Three subtests from the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test battery (Meara 2005) were used to test the learners’ explicit language aptitude. Results showed that only on the immediate posttest and only under the explicit feedback condition was explicit language aptitude predictive of L2 performance.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Relative effectiveness of feedback types
- 3.Explicit language aptitude (ELA)
- 4.Present study
-
5.Method
- 5.1Participants
- 5.2Target structure
-
.3Treatment tasks
- 5.3.1Story retelling
- 5.3.2Spot the difference
- 5.3.3Guided oral production
-
5.4Pretest/posttest/delayed posttest
- 5.4.1Story retelling
- 5.4.2Spot the difference
- 5.4.3Guided oral production
- 5.5Explicit language aptitude tests
- 5.6Treatment groups
- 5.6.1Explicit
-
5.6.2Implicit
- 5.6.3Mixed
- 5.6.4Reduced explicit
- 5.6.5No feedback
- 5.7Procedure
- 5.8Scoring
- 6.Results
- 7.Discussion
-
8.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References (55)
References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In K.C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, pp. 83–118. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern language aptitude test: Form A. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.
Caspi, O., & Bell, I. R. (2004). One size does not fit all: Aptitude x treatment interaction (ATI) as a conceptual framework for complementary and alternative medicine outcome research. Part 1--what is ATI research? Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (New York, NY), 10, 580–586.
Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., Campbell, S., Mislevy, M., Bunting, M., Bowles, A., & Koeth, J. (2010). Predicting near-native ability: The factor structure and reliability of Hi-LAB. In M. Prior, Y. Watanabe, & S. Lee (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 10–31). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
Granena, G. (2012). Age differences and cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning in ultimate L2 attainment. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
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.
Liu, D., & Gleason, J. I. (2002). Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English: An analysis of four nongeneric uses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 1–26.
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361–377). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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.
Master, P. (2002). Information structure and English article pedagogy. System, 30, 331–348.
McLeod, D.B. (1978). [Review of the book Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 390–395. Retrieved from JSTOR Web site: <[URL]>
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests. Swansea, UK: Lognostics.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.
Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.
Pica, T. (1983). Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 69–78.
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition. A series of empirical studies (pp. 212–228). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In Hulstijn, J. H., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Consciousness and second language learning: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues in language learning and teaching. Thematic issue of AILA Review,, 11, 11–26.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (Vol. 2, pp. 69–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2011). Subcomponents of second-language aptitude and second-language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 253–273.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 144–171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. J. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 271–290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 6, 1134–1169.
Yilmaz, Y. (2013b). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705.
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 147–161.
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 293–314.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Zhang, Wei & Yi Liao
2023.
The role of auditory processing in L2 vowel learning: evidence from recasts.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1
Bokander, Lars & Emanuel Bylund
2020.
Probing the Internal Validity of the LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests.
Language Learning 70:1
► pp. 11 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.