L1 Explicit Instruction Can Improve L2 Online and Offline Performance

Abstract

Article:McManus, Kevin orcid.org/0000-0002-7855-6733 and Marsden, Emma orcid.org/0000-0003-4086-5765 (2017) L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. pp. 459-492. ISSN 1470459-492. ISSN -1545 https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600022X eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Explicit information and practice in L2 learningThe usefulness of providing L2 learners with explicit information (EI) about a target feature and subsequent practice in processing the input is not fully understood. As noted by Henry, Culman and VanPatten (2009, p.573) Ònot all EI is the same, not all structures are the same, and the interaction of EI, structure, and processing problem may yield different results in different studiesÓ. The current study investigates the effects of EI with practice in the L2 and also, in light of research documenting persistent difficulty when the L1 and L2 express the same meaning differently (Izquierdo & Collins, 2008;McManus, 2013McManus, , 2015Roberts & Liszka, 2013), whether additional EI about the L1 with L1 practice can help a specific processing problem Ð interpreting the habitual versus ongoing meanings of L2 French Imparfait for L1 English learners. We tested whether making this conceptual distinction explicit, via EI and meaning-based practice in both L1 and L2, would aid form-meaning mapping. First, we briefly discuss research into L2 EI and practice, before justifying the investigation of a role for L1 EI and practice, and then move on to discuss why EI and practice (in L2 and L1) may have an effect on online processing. L2 EI and PracticeEI about the L2 is useful for learning, according to information processing and skill acquisition theories, because some declarative information can become proceduralised via practice and automatized, resulting in automatised declarative knowledge and/or knowledge that appears indistinguishable from implicit knowledge (DeKeyser, 2015). 'Weaker' accounts suggest that learners can use EI to segment or parse the input (Terrell, 1991), notice features (Schmidt, 1990), understand a rule and help production (Leow, 2015), and arrive at correct interpretations with fewer practice items (Henry et al., 2009 4 ! to depend on several factors, including its precise nature Ð the type of information conveyed and the feature in focus. T...

Pronunciation Training Facilitates the Learning and Retention of L2 Grammatical Structures

“…4 Based on Plonsky and Oswald (), effect sizes for within‐group comparisons (e.g., grammar + pronunciation group at pretest vs. posttest) were considered large when d > 1.40, medium when d = 1.00, and small when d < 0.60, and effect sizes for between‐group comparisons (e.g., grammar + pronunciation vs. grammar‐only group at pretest) were considered large when d > 1.00, medium when d = 0.70, and small when d < 0.40. Adjusted effect sizes to account for any baseline differences between the two groups on the pretest are also reported for all between‐group comparisons (see McManus & Marsden, , for similar procedures). In interpreting all effect sizes reported here, it is important to note that in the context of textual IE studies, both within‐ and between‐group effect sizes are usually small, with Lee and Huang () reporting an average within‐group effect size of d = 0.55 when comparing pretest to posttest results, and average between‐group effect sizes ranging from d = 0.22 to d = −0.13 for posttest and delayed posttest measures between groups receiving textual IE and groups receiving an unenhanced input flood (p. 307; see Alsadhan, , for similar findings for textual IE).…”

Comparing the Effectiveness of Processing Instruction and Production-Based Instruction on L2 Grammar Learning: The Role of Explicit Information

“…Another controversial line of inquiry is related to the role of explicit information in the first and second language (McManus & Marsden, 2017) and in PI. To investigate any possible effect of EI in PI, for instance, VanPatten and Oik-VOLUmE 34, iSSUE 2, 2017 kenon (1996) carried out a study that compared learners receiving PI+EI (full PI), PI-EI (structured input only), and EI only.…”

Simultaneous Acquisition of Words and Syntax: Effects of Exposure Condition and Declarative Memory

“…In contrast, intentional learning entails deliberate effort on the part of the learner to commit novel information to memory, with explicit (conscious) knowledge a likely outcome (Hulstijn, 2005; Leow and Zamora, 2017). Studies that directly compare incidental and intentional learning of language typically find an advantage for the latter, for both vocabulary (e.g., Sonbul and Schmitt, 2013; Bordag et al, 2016; Khezrlou et al, 2017) and grammar (e.g., de Graaff, 1997; Tagarelli et al, 2011, 2015, 2016; Denhovska and Serratrice, 2017; McManus and Marsden, 2017). …”