Cover not available
Part of
Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser and Goretti Prieto Botana
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 52] 2019
► pp. 127–154

Chapter 7
The effects of multiple exposures to explicit information

Evidence from two types of learning problems and practice conditions

| University of Southern California
| University of Maryland
The role of explicit information (EI) has long been debated in second language acquisition. Numerous studies report null effects for EI (e.g., VanPatten and Oikennon, 1996) calling for its diminution, whereas just as many point to its facilitative potential (e.g., VanPatten et al., 2013 and others), suggesting it should remain part of instruction. Previous EI studies varied with respect to the targeted learning problem, practice conditions, and EI accessibility throughout the experiment, factors which could hold the key to the divergent results found in the literature. In order to address this, a study was conducted to assess the effects of (a) multiple vs. no exposure to EI when targeting (b) learnability problems of structural vs. semantic nature and (c) under task-essential (TE) and non-task-essential practice conditions. One hundred and thirty learners of Spanish were randomly assigned to eight experimental conditions and a control group. After treatment, participants completed picture-matching, fill-in-the-gap and sentence interpretation tasks. Immediate posttest results revealed that EI was crucial for benefits to obtain under non-TE conditions whereas under TE conditions it appeared to be expendable depending on the task.
Keywords: Explicit Information, inductive instruction, deductive instruction, Spanish ser/estar, Spanish OVS
Article outline
  • Literature review
  • The present study
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Procedure
      • Targeted structure
    • Materials
      • Instruments
  • Results
    • Production task
    • Sentence matching task
    • Sentence interpretation task
  • Discussion
    • Pedagogical implications
  • Takeaways for research methodology
    • Cost and participant availability
    • Ethics – randomization, stages and disruption to the class
    • Technology – stimulus presentation software vs. authoring systems
    • Student motivation – identifying erratic behavior
    • Generalizability of the findings
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.07bot
References (58)
References
Bates, E. (1994). Modularity, domain specificity and the development of language. Discussions in Neuroscience, 10, 136–149.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output- based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., B. MacWhinney, C. Caselli, A. Devescovi, F. Natale, and V. Venza. (1984). ‘A cross- linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies.’ Child Development, 55, 341–54.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2004a). ‘The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian.’ Language Awareness 13(2), 67–80.Google Scholar
(2004b). ‘The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense’ in B. VanPatten (ed.): Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 207–26.Google Scholar
Berkovits, I., Hancock, G., & Nevvitt, J. (2000). Bootstrap resampling approaches for repeated measures designs: Relative robustness to sphericity and normality violations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 877–892. 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
Briscoe, G. (1995). The acquisition of ser and estar by nonnative speakers of Spanish (Unpublished dissertation), University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Cheng, A. C. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Processing instruction and semantic ser and estar: Forms withsemantic aspectual values. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 119–141) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Culman, H., Henry, N., VanPatten, B. (2009) The Role of Explicit Information in Instructed SLA: An On‐Line Study with Processing Instruction and German Accusative Case Inflections. The Unterrichtpraxis/Teaching German. 42(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
Culman, H., Henry, N., and VanPatten, B. (2009). ‘The role of explicit information in instructed SLA: An on-line study with processing 90 instruction and German accusative case inflections.’ Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 42(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1993). Rule and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. (2004). 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
Gass, S. M. (1989). How do learners resolve linguistic conflicts? In S. Gass & J. Schacter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 183–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, Kimberly L. (2000). A new approach to the second language acquisition of copula choice in Spanish. In R. P. Leow & C. Sanz (Eds.), Spanish applied linguistics at the turn of the millennium: Papers from the 1999 Conference on the L1 and L2 Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 50–66). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Guntermann, G. (1992). An analysis of interlanguage development over time, part II: Ser and estar. Hispania, 75, 1294–1303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hettmansperger, T. P., & McKean, J. (2012). Robust non-parametric statistical methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Huitema, B. (2012). The analysis of covariance and alternatives. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. San Francisco, CA: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
LoCoco, V. (1987). Learner comprehension of oral and written sentences in German and Spanish: The importance of word order. In B. VanPatten, T. R. Dovrak, & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 116–129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lomax, R. G. (2007). An introduction to statistical concepts for education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2007). Statistical concepts: A second course for education and the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based learning. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Paulston, C. (1972). Structural pattern drills: A classification. In H. Allen & R. Campbell (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language (pp. 129–138). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google 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, 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, 223–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosa, E., & Leow, R. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, V. (2012). Learning Complex Grammar in the Virtual Classroom: A Comparison of Processing Instruction, Structured Input, Computerized Visual Input Enhancement, and Traditional Instruction. Foreign Language Annals. 45(1), 42–71.Google Scholar
Ryan, J., & Lafford, B. (1992). The acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad environment: Ser + estar and the Granada experience. Hispania, 75, 714–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google 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
Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (2016). A quasi-experimental study of corrective feedback and metacognitive instruction in intact English L2 classes. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, in Orlando.
Silvá-Corvalán, C. (1986). Bilingualism and language change: The extension of estar in Los Angeles Spanish. Language, 62, 587–608 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1984). Learners’ comprehension of clitic pronouns: More evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistics, 1, 57–67.Google Scholar
(1993) Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 435–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2010). Some verbs are more perfect than others: Why learners have difficulty with ser and estar and what it means for instruction. Hispania, 91, 29–38.Google Scholar
(1985). “The Acquisition of Ser and Estar by Adult Learners of Spanish: A Preliminary Investigation of Transitional Stages of Competence.” Hispania 68(2), 399–406.Google Scholar
(1987). “Classroom Learners’ Acquisition of Ser and Estar: Accounting for Developmental Patterns.” Foreign Language Learning. Ed. Bill VanPatten, Trisha R. Dvorak, and James F. Lee. Rowley: Newbury. 19–32. Print.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J. E., Borst, S., and Qualin., A., (2013). ‘Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: a cross-linguistic study in 45 processing instruction.’ The Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 506–27.Google Scholar
White, J. and A. DeMil. (2013). ‘Transfer of nontraining effects in processing instruction,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 519–44.Google Scholar
Wilcox, R. (2005). An approach to Ancova that allows multiple covariates, nonlinearity, and heteroscedasticity. Educational Psychology and Measurement, 65, 442–450. 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
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Rogers, John & Xiuli Yang
2024. Attention and Awareness in Second Language Learning. In Cognitive and Educational Psychology for TESOL [Springer Texts in Education, ], ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 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.