Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T13:44:08.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PRACTICE IS IMPORTANT BUT HOW ABOUT ITS QUALITY?

CONTEXTUALIZED PRACTICE IN THE CLASSROOM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2019

Masatoshi Sato Open the ORCID record for Masatoshi Sato [Opens in a new window]  and
Kim McDonough
Masatoshi Sato*
Affiliation:
Universidad Andres Bello
Kim McDonough
Affiliation:
Concordia University
*
*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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 41 , Issue 5 , December 2019 , pp. 999 - 1026
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

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.

References

REFERENCES

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. 29–51). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ammar, A., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: Does it matter? Language Awareness, 19, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google ScholarPubMed
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. 1–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 607–623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 893–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007a). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.) (2007b). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. (2017). L2 fluency development. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 246–259). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichenbaum, H. (2012). The cognitive neuroscience of memory: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 123–148). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 174–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, A., & Bourne, L. (Eds.). (1995). Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 555–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 895–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, P., Laird, J., & Rogers, S. (2009). Cognitive architectures: Research issues and challenges. Cognitive Systems Research, 10, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2000). Do they know what they’re doing? L2 learners’ awareness of L1 influence. Language Awareness, 9, 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 1247–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 71–92). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 343–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin-Chang, S., & Levy, B. (2006). Word reading fluency: A transfer appropriate processing account of fluency transfer. Reading and Writing, 19, 517–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 1512–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2010). Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 817–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 933–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 282–300). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morris, C., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 297–310.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Anderson, J. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, J. W., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8, 1–5.Google Scholar
Pavlik, P., & Anderson, J. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29, 559–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedhazur, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.Google Scholar
Petrocelli, J. V. (2003). Hierarchical multiple regression in counseling research: Common problems and possible remedies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36, 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Center, Adult Migrant Education Program.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, D. M. (2011). The automatization of verbal morphology in instructed second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, P. L. (1994). Missing data: A conceptual review for applied psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 47, 537–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 31–54). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., & Fisk, A. (1983). Attentional theory and mechanisms for skilled performance. In Magill, R. (Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 119–143). New York, NY: North-Holland Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Dumais, S., & Shiffrin, R. (1984). Automatic and controlled processing and attention. In Parasuraman, R. & Davies, D. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 1–27). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schuetze, U. (2015). Spacing techniques in second language vocabulary acquisition: Short-term gains vs. long-term memory. Language Teaching Research, 19, 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, R., Stengers, H., & Housen, A. (2015). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 19, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 763–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017a). Effects of distributed practice on the proceduralization of morphology. Language Teaching Research, 21, 166–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017b). Exploratory research on second language practice distribution: An Aptitude × Treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, E. (2014). About practice: Repetition, spacing, and abstraction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 60, 113–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8, 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walz, J. (1989). Context and contextualized language practice in foreign language teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sato and McDonough supplementary material

Sato and McDonough supplementary material 1

Download Sato and McDonough supplementary material(File)
File 539.9 KB