Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:11:56.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IMPLICITNESS AND EXPLICITNESS IN COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

A DOUBLE DISSOCIATION?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2021

Yucel Yilmaz Open the ORCID record for Yucel Yilmaz [Opens in a new window]  and
Gisela Granena Open the ORCID record for Gisela Granena [Opens in a new window]
Yucel Yilmaz*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Gisela Granena
Affiliation:
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yucel Yilmaz, Department of Second Language Studies, University of Indiana, Ballantine Hall 715, 1020 E. Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington, Indiana47405. E-mail: yyilmaz@indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This aptitude–treatment interaction study investigated the extent to which explicit and implicit cognitive abilities are differentially related to learning outcomes under two corrective feedback conditions. One hundred and thirteen intermediate English learners of Spanish were randomly assigned to an implicit feedback (recast), explicit feedback (explicit correction), or control group after completing tests from two aptitude batteries (High-Level Language Aptitude Battery [Hi-LAB] and LLAMA). Linguistic improvement on noun-adjective gender agreement and Differential Object Marking was assessed using grammaticality judgment and oral production tasks. Results showed that implicit but not explicit abilities were relevant for the acquisition of gender agreement under implicit feedback as measured by grammaticality judgments. In contrast, explicit but not implicit abilities were relevant for the acquisition of object marking under explicit feedback as measured by oral production. These results lent support to a double dissociation, but they also suggested higher-order interaction effects between the type of cognitive ability, outcome measure, and target structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 43 , Special Issue 3: Implicit Language Aptitude: Conceptualizing the Construct, Validating the Measures, and Examining the Evidence , July 2021 , pp. 523 - 550
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This work was supported by a Spencer Foundation Small Research Grant #201500053 to Gisela Granena and Yucel Yilmaz. We would like to thank the CASL for providing us with web-delivered versions of the Hi-LAB tests and for scoring and sending us the data, blind of any specific hypothesis about the results. We would also like to acknowledge the invaluable help provided by Diana Arroyo for her assistance during data collection and analysis.

References

REFERENCES

Alarcón, I. (2010). Gender assignment and agreement in L2 Spanish: The effects of morphological marking, animacy and gender. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 3, 267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review, 94, 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arroyo, D., & Yilmaz, Y. (2017). The role of language analytic ability in the effectiveness of different feedback timing conditions. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 71–97). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1985). Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 535–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Buffington, J., & Morgan-Short, K. (2019). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language aptitude. In Wen, Z., Skehan, P., Biedroń, A., Li, S., & Sparks, R. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 215–237). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Training research and education (pp. 87–136). University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1966). A parametric study of language training in the Peace Corps. Final report. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test: Form A. Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 24–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Irvington.Google Scholar
Dean, A., & Voss, D. (1999). Design and analysis of experiments. Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/b97673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 395–406). Routledge.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2013). Optimizing post-critical-period language learning. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 153–174). Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2014). Assessing aptitude. In Kunnan, A. (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 25–46). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2019). Cognitive language aptitude. Language Learning, 69(Suppl. 1), 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández-García, M. (1999). Patterns of gender agreement in the speech of second language learners. In Gutierrez-Rexach, J. & Martinez-Gil, F. (Eds.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics: Papers from the 2nd Spanish linguistics symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 3–15). Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Finneman, M. D. (1992). Learning agreement in the noun phrase: The strategies of three first-year Spanish students. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 30, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebauer, G. F., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2007). Psychometric intelligence dissociates implicit and explicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 34–54.Google ScholarPubMed
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–129). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2014). Language aptitude and long-term achievement in early childhood L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 35, 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2019). Cognitive aptitudes and L2 speaking proficiency: Links between LLAMA and Hi-LAB. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). Aptitude-Treatment Interaction in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Studies in English Education, 23, 803–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y. (2019). Corrective feedback and the role of implicit sequence learning ability in L2 online performance. Language Learning, 69, 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2016). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity: A replication. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O., & Yilmaz, Y. (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 279–302). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Pearson, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2015). Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in incidental language learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (n.d.). PROCESS (Computer Software). Retrieved from https://www.processmacro.org/download.html.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Explaining phenomena of first and second language acquisition with the constructs of implicit and explicit learning: The virtues and pitfalls of a two-system view. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 25–46). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalra, P., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Finn, A. S. (2019). Evidence of stable individual differences in implicit learning. Coqgnition, 190, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual difference perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 637–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jimenez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C. (1996). Is working memory capacity Spearman’s g? In Dennis, I. & Tapsfield, P. (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement (pp. 49–75). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle 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, 634–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., Smith, B. K., Bunting, M. F., & Doughty, C. J. (2013). Hi‐LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high‐level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W., & Bhatia, T.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. (2009). The handbook of language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests. Lognostics.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Gürel, A. (2015). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers. In Judy, T. & Perpiñán, S. (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish by speakers of less commonly studies languages (pp. 281–308). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Bartlett-Hsu, L. (2015). Contribution of event-related potential research into explicit and implicit second language acquisition. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Investigating implicit and explicit language learning (pp. 349–386). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research and practice. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, T. S., & Child, J. R. (1990). Preliminary investigation of the relationship between VORD, MLAT, and language proficiency. In Parry, T. S. & Stansfield, C. W. (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 30–66). Prentice-Hall Regents.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Revesz, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different l2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seger, C. A. (1994). Implicit learning. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 163–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in L2 teaching. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Ruiz, S., Vega, J. L. M., & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 144–171). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woltz, D. J. (2003). Implicit cognitive processes as aptitudes for learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013b). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 45–86.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2019). Cognitive individual differences as predictors of improvement and awareness under implicit and explicit feedback conditions. Modern Language Journal, 103, 686–702.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Koylu, Y. (2016). The interaction between feedback exposure condition and phonetic coding ability. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O., & Yilmaz, Y. (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 303–326). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Yilmaz and Granena supplementary material

Yilmaz and Granena supplementary material

Download Yilmaz and Granena supplementary material(File)
File 33.1 KB