Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

PRACTICE IS IMPORTANT BUT HOW ABOUT ITS QUALITY?: CONTEXTUALIZED PRACTICE IN THE CLASSROOM

  • Masatoshi Sato (a1) and Kim McDonough (a2)

Abstract

This study explored the impact of contextualized practice on second language (L2) learners’ production of wh-questions in the L2 classroom. It examined the quality of practice (correct vs. incorrect production) and the contribution of declarative knowledge to proceduralization. Thirty-four university-level English as a foreign language learners first completed a declarative knowledge test. Then, they engaged in various communicative activities over five weeks. Their production of wh-questions was coded for accuracy (absence of errors) and fluency (speech rate, mean length of pauses, and repair phenomena). Improvement was measured as the difference between the first and last practice sessions. The results showed that accuracy, speech rate, and pauses improved but with distinct patterns. Regression models showed that declarative knowledge did not predict accuracy or fluency; however, declarative knowledge assisted the learners to engage in targetlike behaviors at the initial stage of proceduralization. Furthermore, whereas production of accurate wh-questions predicted accuracy improvement, it had no impact on fluency.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Masatoshi Sato, Department of English, Universidad Andres Bello, Fernández Concha 700, Las Condes, Santiago, 7550000, Chile. Email: masatoshi.sato@unab.cl

Footnotes

Hide All

This work was partially supported by grants awarded to the first author by the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnólogico from the Ministry of Education of Chile (FONDECYT: 1181533) and PIA (CIE160009) from the Chilean National Commission of Science and Technology (CONICYT) as well as funding awarded to the second author from the Canada Research Chairs program (950-231218).

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york%3a936167.

We would like to thank the teachers who generously supported our project and the research assistants who helped with data collection and coding: Mayuri Kewlani, Estefanía Valencia, Camila Valenzuela, Mélanie Vergara, and Paula Viveros.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 2951). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ammar, A., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: Does it matter? Language Awareness, 19, 129146.
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.
Anderson, J. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Anderson, J., & Schunn, C. (2000). Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic bullets. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635650.
Chein, J. M., & Schneider, W. (2005). Neuroimaging studies of practice-related change: fMRI and meta-analytic evidence of a domain-general control network for learning. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 607623.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
de Jong, N., & Bosker, H. R. (2013). Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech.
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533568.
de Jong, N., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 893916.
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195221.
DeKeyser, R. (2007a). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 155165.
DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1532). New York, NY: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.) (2007b). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Derwing, T. (2017). L2 fluency development. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 246259). New York, NY: Routledge.
Eichenbaum, H. (2012). The cognitive neuroscience of memory: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition. London, UK: Routledge.
Ferman, S., Olshtain, E., Schechtman, E., & Karni, A. (2009). The acquisition of a linguistic skill by adults: Procedural and declarative memory interact in the learning of an artificial morphological rule. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 384412.
Freed, B. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In Freed, B. (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123148). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Gade, M., Druey, M. D., Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2014). Interference within and between declarative and procedural representations in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 174194.
Healy, A., & Bourne, L. (Eds.). (1995). Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heiberger, R. M., & Holland, B. (2004). Statistical analysis and data display: An intermediate course with examples in S-PLUS, R, and SAS. New York, NY: Springer.
Hulstijn, J., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 555582.
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627658.
Korkmaz, S., & Korkmaz, Ş. Ç. (2013). Contextualization or de-contextualization: Student teachers’ perceptions about teaching a language in context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 895899.
Langley, P., Laird, J., & Rogers, S. (2009). Cognitive architectures: Research issues and challenges. Cognitive Systems Research, 10, 141160.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 3771). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431462.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429448.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2000). Do they know what they’re doing? L2 learners’ awareness of L1 influence. Language Awareness, 9, 198217.
Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 12471282.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): An overview. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (Eds.), The handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 112). New York, NY: Routledge.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285329.
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In García Mayo, M. P., Gutierrez-Mangado, J., & Martínez Adrián, M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 7192). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 140.
Martin-Chang, S., & Levy, B. (2005). Fluency transfer: Differential gains in reading speed and accuracy following isolated word and context training. Reading and Writing, 18, 343376.
Martin-Chang, S., & Levy, B. (2006). Word reading fluency: A transfer appropriate processing account of fluency transfer. Reading and Writing, 19, 517542.
Mbogning, C., Bleakley, K., & Lavielle, M. (2015). Joint modelling of longitudinal and repeated time-to-event data using nonlinear mixed-effects models and the stochastic approximation expectation–maximization algorithm. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 85, 15121528.
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2010). Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 817841.
Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 933947.
Morgan-Short, K., & Ullman, M. (2012). The neurocognition of second language. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 282300). New York, NY: Routledge.
Morris, C., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519533.
Myers, T. A. (2011). Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 297310.
Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary learning: Does gradually increasing spacing increase vocabulary learning? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 677711.
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Anderson, J. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Osborne, J. W., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8, 15.
Pavlik, P., & Anderson, J. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29, 559586.
Pedhazur, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.
Petrocelli, J. V. (2003). Hierarchical multiple regression in counseling research: Common problems and possible remedies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36, 922.
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Center, Adult Migrant Education Program.
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217243.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878912.
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423441.
Rodgers, D. M. (2011). The automatization of verbal morphology in instructed second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49, 295319.
Roth, P. L. (1994). Missing data: A conceptual review for applied psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 47, 537560.
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2019). Methodological strengths, challenges, and joys of classroom-based quasi-experimental research: Metacognitive instruction and corrective feedback. In DeKeyser, R. & Prieto Botana, G. (Eds.), Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability (pp. 3154). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–262.
Schneider, W., & Fisk, A. (1983). Attentional theory and mechanisms for skilled performance. In Magill, R. (Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 119143). New York, NY: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Schneider, W., Dumais, S., & Shiffrin, R. (1984). Automatic and controlled processing and attention. In Parasuraman, R. & Davies, D. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 127). London, UK: Academic Press.
Schuetze, U. (2015). Spacing techniques in second language vocabulary acquisition: Short-term gains vs. long-term memory. Language Teaching Research, 19, 2842.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. London, UK: Routledge.
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173199.
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369385.
Serrano, R., Stengers, H., & Housen, A. (2015). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 19, 89106.
Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 763767.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 122.
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017a). Effects of distributed practice on the proceduralization of morphology. Language Teaching Research, 21, 166188.
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017b). Exploratory research on second language practice distribution: An Aptitude × Treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 2756.
Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, E. (2014). About practice: Repetition, spacing, and abstraction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 60, 113189.
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105122.
Ullman, M., & Lovelett, J. T. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Language Research, 34, 3965.
Van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8, 473488.
Walz, J. (1989). Context and contextualized language practice in foreign language teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 160168.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416432.
Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Sato and McDonough supplementary material
Sato and McDonough supplementary material 1

 Word (540 KB)
540 KB

PRACTICE IS IMPORTANT BUT HOW ABOUT ITS QUALITY?: CONTEXTUALIZED PRACTICE IN THE CLASSROOM

  • Masatoshi Sato (a1) and Kim McDonough (a2)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed