This study examines the effectiveness of written error corrections versus reformulations of second language learners' writing as two means of improving learners' grammatical accuracy on a three-stage composition-comparison-revision task. Concurrent verbal protocols were employed during the comparison stage in order to study the learners' reported awareness of the more targetlike reformulations. The reactivity of think-alouds as a research tool was also assessed. First, 15 adult learners of English participated in a repeated-measures study with three experimental conditions: error correction, reformulation, and reformulation + think-aloud. Participant reports of awareness in the reformulation + think-aloud condition suggested that noticing of feedback was related to the accuracy of subsequent revisions. A second nonrepeated-measures study was then carried out with 54 participants; a control group was added and the design was modified in an attempt to eliminate the reported tendency of learners to develop and use memorization strategies while processing the written feedback. In both experiments, participants performed significantly better in the error correction condition than in the reformulation condition. The think-alouds, used to examine learners' attentional processes, were found to be reactive in the first study; learners in the reformulation condition produced significantly more accurate revisions than those who were asked to think aloud while processing the reformulations they received. The results suggest that whereas verbal protocols might be able to shed some light on learner-internal processes in relation to written feedback, they should be employed and interpreted with care.We would like to thank Alison Mackey and the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their helpful suggestions on this article.

A great deal of research into second‐language (L2) development focuses on the role of cognitive factors and other individual differences. Studies of children and prime‐of‐life adult L2 learners suggest that differences exist in the learning processes of these groups. However, to date, little empirical work has been conducted with older adult learners. In this article we argue that older adults’ L2 learning aptitudes, processes, and outcomes merit investigation. We present interaction and working memory (WM) research as a case in point and then, as a preliminary illustration, report on a small‐scale study of nine older adults, age 65–89, who were native speakers of Spanish learning English as a second language. These learners carried out communicative tasks with native speakers of English, who provided interactional feedback in response to nontargetlike question forms. Interestingly, the only older learners who showed L2 development were those with the highest scores on a first‐language listening‐span test of WM. We conclude by proposing that larger scale longitudinal research into the often overlooked population of older L2 learners is likely to shed interesting light on important questions concerning WM and learning processes in the field of second language acquisition.

This investigation examined two techniques that may help learners focus on second language (L2) constructions when recasts are provided during meaning‐based communicative activities: altering the cognitive complexity of tasks and manipulating the input frequency distributions of target constructions. We first independently assessed the validity of our cognitive task complexity manipulation by means of expert judgments, dual‐task methodology, and eye tracking. Next, in our main study, we employed a pretest‐posttest design with two treatment sessions. The participants were 51 adult English L2 learners, randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups or a control group. All experimental groups received recasts but differed as to whether they carried out simple tasks with lower reasoning demands or complex tasks with higher reasoning demands, and whether they received skewed or balanced input of the linguistic target, the past counterfactual construction. An oral production test and two written receptive tests were utilized to measure changes in participants’ knowledge. Our results revealed no effects for the input frequency manipulations, but participants achieved higher oral production gains under the simple task condition.

Williams’s (2005) study on “learning without awareness” and three subsequent extensions (Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2011; Hama & Leow, 2010; Rebuschat, Hamrick, Sachs, Riestenberg, & Ziegler, 2013) have reported conflicting results, perhaps in part due to differences in how awareness has been measured. The present extension of Williams (2005) addresses this possibility directly by triangulating data from three awareness measures: concurrent verbal reports (think-aloud protocols), retrospective verbal reports (postexposure interviews), and subjective measures (confidence ratings and source attributions). Participants were exposed to an artificial determiner system under incidental learning conditions. One experimental group thought aloud during training, another thought aloud during training and testing, and a third remained silent, as did a trained control group. All participants were then tested by means of a forced-choice task to establish whether learning took place. In addition, all participants provided confidence ratings and source attributions on test items and were interviewed following the test. Our results indicate that, although all experimental groups displayed learning effects, only the silent group was able to generalize the acquired knowledge to novel instances. Comparisons of concurrent and retrospective verbal report data shed light on the conflicting findings previously reported in the literature and highlight important methodological issues in implicit and explicit learning research.

This study explored teachers’ beliefs about pronunciation instruction in Spanish as a second language (L2). An online survey was used to collect data from 100 participants, grouped into 4 categories based on their previous training in principles and methods of pronunciation instruction. This article reports results from 15 survey items which covered participants’ beliefs regarding 6 major themes: the importance of pronunciation, how pronunciation develops, when to teach it, what to teach, how to teach, and who can teach. Although the results revealed several areas where more methods‐related coursework meant greater alignment between Spanish teachers’ beliefs and findings of L2 pronunciation research, there were other topics on which instructors with more training were likely to express beliefs contrasting with the state of the art. For instance, respondents with more coursework tended to accord more value to pronunciation instruction, to set more pronunciation‐related goals for language instruction, and to reject delaying a focus on pronunciation. Unexpectedly, however, some seemed to uphold the native speaker model, suggesting that teacher training and professional development programs may need to emphasize research‐informed practices and the importance of pedagogical expertise over nativelike pronunciation.