Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-rpvk9 Total loading time: 0.674 Render date: 2021-09-27T00:52:11.926Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND THE EFFECTS OF THE TIMING OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2021

Mengxia Fu*
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland
Shaofeng Li
Affiliation:
Florida State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mengxia Fu, School of Cultures, Languages and Linguistics, Arts 2 Building, 18 Symonds Street, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand. E-mail: mfu804@aucklanduni.ac.nz

Abstract

This study examines the associations between implicit and explicit language aptitude and the effects of the timing of corrective feedback (CF). A total of 112 seventh-grade EFL learners were assigned to three groups: Immediate CF, Delayed CF, and Task Only. The three groups underwent three treatment sessions during which they performed six focused communicative tasks eliciting the use of the English past tense. The Immediate and Delayed CF groups received CF treatments in the first and final sessions, respectively, and the Task Only group performed the communicative tasks without receiving any feedback. Treatment effects were measured through an untimed grammaticality judgment test and an elicited imitation test. Implicit language aptitude was operationalized as procedural memory and explicit language aptitude as working memory and declarative memory. Multiple regression analysis showed that procedural memory was significantly predictive of the effectiveness of Immediate CF, declarative memory was significantly associated with Delayed CF and Task Only, and working memory was a significant predictor of Immediate CF and Delayed CF. The results were interpreted by consulting the methodological features of the treatments and the mechanisms of the three cognitive abilities.

Type
Research Article
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.)

References

Antoniou, M., Ettlinger, M., & Wong, P. C. (2016). Complexity, training paradigm design, and the contribution of memory subsystems to grammar learning. PLoS ONE, 11, e0158812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 7297). John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arroyo, D., & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer‐mediated communication. Language Learning, 68, 942972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2018). World library of psychologists series. Exploring working memory: Selected works of Alan Baddeley. Routledge.Google Scholar
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23, 702726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brill-Schuetz, K., & Morgan-Short, K. (2014). The role of procedural memory in adult second language acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36, 260265.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H. (2008). A behavioral and electrophysiological investigation of different aptitudes for L2 grammar in learners equated for proficiency level. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. In Parry, T. & Stansfield, C. (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 1129). Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (2002). Manual for the MLAT. Second Language Testing, Inc.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2016). Of moving targets and chameleons. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 353363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G., & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 83104). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114138). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in second language acquisition, 27, 141172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 887916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettlinger, M., Bradlow, A., & Wong, P. (2014). Variability in the learning of complex morphophonology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 807831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2018). The interplay of individual differences and context of learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language development. Second Language Research, 34, 67101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: (And sex and drugs and rock’n’roll). Sage.Google Scholar
Fu, M., & Li, S. (2020). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, A., Meulemans, T., Parisse, C., & Maillart, C. (2015). Procedural learning across modalities in French-speaking children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 747769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, E. (2011). Cognitive psychology: connecting mind, research, and everyday experience. Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y. (2019). Corrective feedback and the role of implicit sequence‐learning ability in L2 online performance. Language Learning, 69, 127156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2015). Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in incidental language learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaller, C., Unterrainer, J., & Stahl, C. (2012). Assessing planning ability with the Tower of London task: Psychometric properties of a structurally balanced problem set. Psychological Assessment, 24, 4653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, S., DeYoung, C., Gray, J., Jimenez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, S. (2013a). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013b). The differential roles of language analytic ability and working memory in mediating the effects of two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. In Sanz, C. & Lado, B. (Eds.), Individual differences, L2 development & language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 3252). Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 801842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2017a). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 4170). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017b). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 396417). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2018). Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback. In Gudmestad, A. & Edmonds, A. (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp. 3361). John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (in press). Working memory. In Godfroid, A. & Hopp, H. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and psycholinguistics. Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 693722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., & Fu, M. (2018). Strategic and unpressured within-task planning and their associations with working memory. Language Teaching Research, 22, 230253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 276295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lukács, Á., Kemény, F., Lum, J., & Ullman, M. (2017). Learning and overnight retention in declarative memory in specific language impairment. PloS One, 12, e0169474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lum, J., Conti-Ramsden, G., Page, D., & Ullman, M. (2012). Working, declarative and procedural memory in specific language impairment. Cortex, 48, 11381154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lum, J., & Kidd, E. (2012). An examination of the associations among multiple memory systems, past tense, and vocabulary in typically developing 5-year-old children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 9891006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. C. (2014). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 5672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41, 255283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 263282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. (2015). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 135158). Routledge.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge and use. In Hickok, G., & Small, S. (Eds.), The neurobiology of language (pp. 953968). Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 531). Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Z., & Li, S. (2019). Working memory in L2 learning and processing. In Schwieter, J. & Benati, A. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 365389). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235263.CrossRefGoogle 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, 147161.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, 686702.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Sağdıç, A. (2019). The interaction between inhibitory control and corrective feedback timing. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170, 204227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2020). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd persons by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND THE EFFECTS OF THE TIMING OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND THE EFFECTS OF THE TIMING OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND THE EFFECTS OF THE TIMING OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *