Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T20:10:19.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DYNAMIC INTERPLAY BETWEEN PRACTICE TYPE AND PRACTICE SCHEDULE IN A SECOND LANGUAGE

THE POTENTIAL AND LIMITS OF SKILL TRANSFER AND PRACTICE SCHEDULE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2019

Yuichi Suzuki Open the ORCID record for Yuichi Suzuki [Opens in a new window]  and
Midori Sunada
Yuichi Suzuki*
Affiliation:
Kanagawa University, Japan
Midori Sunada
Affiliation:
Nihon University, Japan
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yuichi Suzuki, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Kanagawa University, 3-27-1, Rokkakubashi, Kanagawa-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa, 221-8686, Japan. E-mail: szky819@kanagawa-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To investigate the skill transfer and the effects of practice schedules in the learning of second language syntax, 129 intermediate-level English learners were divided into six groups, based on practice format (input vs. output practice) and practice schedule (blocked vs. interleaved vs. hybrid [blocked + interleaved]). Analyses revealed that the learners tested on the skill they had practiced outperformed those who were tested on the nonpracticed skill. This pattern was particularly pronounced in comprehension processing speed and production accuracy. Moreover, hybrid practice facilitated skill development more than blocked or interleaved practice alone. Furthermore, a dynamic interplay was detected among practice format, schedule, and learners’ prior knowledge. Hybrid practice led to the least transfer from receptive skills (gained through input practice) to productive skills. Unlike interleaved practice effects, the effects of blocked practice on comprehension speed were more susceptible to learners’ prior processing speed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 169 - 197
Open Practices
Open materials
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

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%3a936411&ref=search.

We would like to show our gratitude to Mr. Atsushi Miura, Ms. Satoko Yokosawa, Dr. Baikuntha Bhatta, and Ms. Misaki Kuratsubo for their assistance throughout the study.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Google Scholar
Bavelier, D., Bediou, B., & Green, C. S. (2018). Expertise and generalization: Lessons from action video games. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 20, 169–173. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635–650. doi: 10.1017/S0142716410000172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. P. (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.14. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. K., & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory & Cognition, 41, 671–682. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0291-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory & Cognition, 42, 481–495. doi: 10.3758/s13421-013-0371-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28, 369–382. doi: 10.1177/0267658312443651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening? An experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205–234. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050114.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 94–112). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2018). Foreword. In Jones, C. (Ed.), Practice in second language learning (pp. xiv–xviii). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Botana, P. G. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36, 290–305. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613–642. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01354.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100010287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2018). Cognitive language aptitude. Language Learning. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/lang.12322.Google Scholar
Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 61, 367–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00613.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
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, 384–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. doi: 10.3758/BF03195503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 212–224. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, K. G., Domingues, D. A., & Cavazos, R. (1994). Contextual interference effects with skilled baseball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 835–841. doi: 10.2466/pms.1994.78.3.835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 555–582. doi: 10.1017/S0142716409990014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53, 285–323. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from anovas (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, S. H. (2016). The benefits of interleaved practice for learning. In Horvath, J. C., Lodge, J. M., & Hattie, J. (Eds.), From the laboratory to the classroom: Translating science of learning for teachers (pp. 79–93). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kang, S. H., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97–103. doi: 10.1002/acp.1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., Erdfelder, E., & Dickhäuser, O. (2014). The lag effect in secondary school classrooms: Enhancing students’ memory for vocabulary. Instructional Science, 42, 373–388. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9285-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The r package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). Perception practice, production practice, and musical ability in L2 mandarin tone-word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 593–620. doi: 10.1017/S0272263116000358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., & Taguchi, N. (2014). The effects of practice modality on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 794–812. doi: 10.1111/modl.12123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65, 185–207. doi: 10.1111/lang.12117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing type i error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, S. W. (2014). Spaced vs. Massed distribution instruction for L2 grammar learning. System, 42, 412–428. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2014.01.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12, 11–37. doi: 10.1177/1362168807084492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., 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. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 677–711. doi: 10.1017/S0272263114000825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakata, T., & Suzuki, Y. (2019). Mixing grammar exercises facilitates long-term retention: Effects of blocking, interleaving, and increasing practice. Modern Language Journal, 103, 629–647. doi: 10.1111/modl.12581.Google Scholar
Porter, J. M., Landin, D., Hebert, E. P., & Baum, B. (2007). The effects of three levels of contextual interference on performance outcomes and movement patterns in golf skills. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2, 243–255. doi: 10.1260/174795407782233100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. M., & Magill, R. A. (2010). Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sport skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 1277–1285. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2010.502946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, J. (2015). Learning second language syntax under massed and distributed conditions. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 857–866. doi: 10.1002/tesq.252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, J., & Cheung, A. (2018). Input spacing and the learning of L2 vocabulary in a classroom context. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1362168818805251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, D., Dedrik, R. F., & Burgess, K. (2014). The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1323–1330. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0588-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, M., & Moorman, C. (2018). Can perception training improve the production of second language phonemes? A meta-analytic review of 25 years of perception training research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 187–224. doi: 10.1017/S0142716417000418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sana, F., Yan, V. X., & Kim, J. A. (2017). Study sequence matters for the inductive learning of cognitive concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 84–98. doi: 10.1037/edu0000119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, R., & Huang, H. Y. (2018). Learning vocabulary through assisted repeated reading: How much time should there be between repetitions of the same text? TESOL Quarterly, 52, 971–994. doi: 10.1002/tesq.445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179–187.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329. doi: 10.1111/lang.12001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1994). Abilities in academic tasks. In Sternberg, R. J. & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 3–37). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2017). The optimal distribution of practice for the acquisition of L2 morphology: A conceptual replication and extension. Language Learning, 67, 512–545. doi: 10.1111/lang.12236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). Effects of distributed practice on the proceduralization of morphology. Language Teaching Research, 21, 166–188. doi: 10.1177/1362168815617334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2019a). Optimizing second language practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. Modern Language Journal, 103, 551–561. doi: 10.1111/modl.12582.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2019b). The desirable difficulty framework as a theoretical foundation for optimizing and researching second language practice. Modern Language Journal, 103, 713–720. doi: 10.1111/modl.12585.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, E. (2014). About practice: Repetition, spacing, and abstraction. The Psychology of Learning & Motivation, 60, 113–189. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800090-8.00004-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, A. W. K., Whitehill, T. L., Ma, E. P. M., & Masters, R. (2013). Effects of practice schedules on speech motor learning. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 511–523. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2012.761282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, V. X., Soderstrom, N. C., Seneviratna, G. S., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2017). How should exemplars be sequenced in inductive learning? Empirical evidence versus learners’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 403–416. doi: 10.1037/xap0000139.Google ScholarPubMed
Yi, W. (2018). Statistical sensitivity, cognitive aptitudes, and processing of collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 831–856. doi: 10.1017/S0272263118000141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & Cognition, 41, 16–27. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0238-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Suzuki and Sunada supplementary material

Appendices A-H

Download Suzuki and Sunada supplementary material(File)
File 164.8 KB