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. 155–178

Chapter 8
CALL in ISLA

Promoting depth of processing of complex L2 Spanish “Para/Por” prepositions

| Georgetown University
| American University
| Georgetown University
| American University

Despite the current curricular push for hybridization in language programs, research on ISLA provides little guidance as to what and how syllabus content can be migrated online. Cerezo, Caras, and Leow (2016) recently showed that videogames using guided induction (GI) can successfully promote robust learning outcomes and deep processing of a complex L2 grammatical structure, Spanish gustar constructions. This study addressed Cerezo et al.’s various limitations by comparing the effects of two videogame versions (GI vs. deductive instruction or DI) on both learning outcomes and processes of a lexically-driven, L2 form (Spanish para and por prepositions). Different from Cerezo et al. (2016), results showed no significant edge of GI over DI, suggesting that type of linguistic item might moderate the effectiveness of GI and that “one size may not fit all” in the hybridization of syllabus content. Beyond pedagogical and curricular implications, our discussion also focuses on the advantages and challenges of incorporating CALL in ISLA research.

Keywords: CALL, curricular approach, guided induction, deductive instruction, videogames, cognitive processes, Spanish para/por
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Review of the literature
    • The CALL-ISLA interface
    • Guided induction in videogames: Cerezo, Caras, and Leow (2016)
    • Spanish para and por prepositions
  • Research questions
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Treatments
    • Targeted items
    • Assessment task
    • Procedure
    • Scoring
    • Analysis
  • Results
    • Research Question 1: Learning outcomes
    • Multiple-choice recognition
    • Controlled written production
    • Research Question 2: Cognitive processes
    • DI group
    • GI group
      • Rule formulation
      • Activation of recent knowledge
      • Metacognition
      • Hypothesis formulation
      • Participants’ feedback
      • DI
      • GI
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.08leo
References
Adrada-Rafael, S.
(2017) Processing the Spanish imperfect subjunctive: Depth of processing under different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 477–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T.
(2016) Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.Google Scholar
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R.
(2007) Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Sloan-C.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L.
(2012) Beyond hybrid learning: A synthesis of research on e-tutors under the lens of SLA theory. In F. Rubio & J. J. Thoms (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 50–66). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
(2016) Theoretical approaches to CALL research: Toward a psycholinguistic perspective. In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning. (pp. 23–46). Berlin, Germany; Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L., Baralt, M., Suh, B-R., & Leow, R. P.
(2014) Does the medium really matter in L2 development? The validity of CALL research designs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4), 294–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cerezo, L., Caras, A., & Leow, R. P.
(2016) The effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish gustar structures: An analysis of learning outcomes and processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 265–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De la Fuente, M. J.
(2016) Explicit corrective feedback and computer-based, form-focused instruction: The role of L1 in promoting awareness of L2 forms. In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 171–197). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Delbecque, N.
(1996) Towards a cognitive account of the use of the prepositions por and para in Spanish. In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 249–318). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galloway, V.
(1980) Perceptions of the communicative efforts of American students of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 64(4), 428–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M.
(2013) A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL Journal, 25(2), 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guntermann, G.
(1992) An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part I, por and para. Hispania, 75(1), 177–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Al Khalil, M., Baralt, M., & Leow, R. P.
(2016) Levels of awareness in relation to type of recast and type of linguistic item in computer-mediated communication: A concurrent investigation. In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 151–170). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Heift, T., & Chapelle, C. A.
(2012) Language learning through technology. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hsieh, H-C., Moreno, N., & Leow, R. P.
(2016) Awareness, type of medium, and L2 development: Revisiting Hsieh (2008). In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and L2 learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2000) The use of computer technology in experimental studies of second language acquisition: A survey of some techniques and some ongoing studies. Language Learning & Technology, 3(2), 32–43.Google Scholar
Lam, Y.
(2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language awareness, 18(1), 2–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P.
(2001) Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 21–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Explicit learning in the L2 Classroom: A student-centered approach: New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
in press a). Explicit learning and depth of processing in the instructed setting: Theory, research, and practice. Studies in English Education 23 (4).
Leow, R. P. & Cerezo, L.
(2016) Deconstructing the I and SLA in ISLA: One curricular approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 43–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Zamora, C.
(2017) Intentional and incidental learning. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 33–49). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S.
(2015) Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lunn, P. V.
(1987) The Semantics of por and para. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Neill, J.
(2008) Why use effect sizes instead of significance testing in program evaluation. Retrieved from [URL] (20 July 20, 2014).
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L.
(2010) Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Ziegler, N.
(2016) The CALL–SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17–37.Google Scholar
Reinders, H., & Stockwell, G.
(2017) Computer-assisted SLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 361–375). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rott, S.
(2005) Processing glosses: A qualitative exploration of how form-meaning connections are established and strengthened. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(2), 95–124.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. M.
(2013) CALL versus paper: In which context are L1 glosses more effective? CALICO Journal, 30, 63–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toth, P. D., Wagner, E., & Moranski, K.
(2013) ‘Co-constructing’ explicit L2 knowledge with high school Spanish learners through guided induction. Applied Linguistics, 34, 279–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Lee, J., & Ballman, A.
(2010) Vistazos: Un curso breve (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S. P., & York, H.
(2011) Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 353–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, C. & Reinders, H.
(2010) The theory and practice of technology in materials development and task design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zhuang, J.
in press). Computer-assisted guided induction and deductive instruction on the development of complex Chinese ba structures: Extending Cerezo et al. (2016) To appear in R. P. Leow Ed. The Routledge Handbook of second language research in classroom learning New York, NY Routledge
Ziegler, N.
(2016) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Leow, Ronald P.
2019. Noticing Hypothesis. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Leow, Ronald P.
2023. Ronald P. Leow's essential bookshelf: The L2 learning process in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). Language Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Li, Fei & Yunmei Sun
2024. Effects of different forms of explicit instruction on L2 development: A meta‐analysis. Foreign Language Annals 57:1 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
MALOVRH, PAUL A. & JAMES F. LEE
2022. What Does Explicit Knowledge Look Like? An Analysis of Information Structure in Rule Formation by L2 Learners and Its Relationship With Guided Inductive Learning. The Modern Language Journal 106:4 ► pp. 818 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Ronald P. Leow
2020. Chapter 14. An ISLA perspective on L2 learning through writing. In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Moranski, Kara & Janire Zalbidea
2022. Context and Generalizability in Multisite L2 Classroom Research: The Impact of Deductive Versus Guided Inductive Instruction. Language Learning 72:S1 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.