Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T04:25:51.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECTS OF THE TIMING OF ISOLATED FFI ON THE EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AND WRITTEN ACCURACY OF LEARNERS WITH DIFFERENT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LINGUISTIC TARGET

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2016

Natsuko Shintani
Natsuko Shintani*
Affiliation:
University of Auckland, New Zealand
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Natsuko Shintani, Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, Gate 3, 74 Epsom Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023, New Zealand. E-mail: n.shintani@auckland.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the effects of the timing of explicit instruction (EI) on grammatical accuracy. A total of 123 learners were divided into two groups: those with some productive knowledge of past-counterfactual conditionals (+Prior Knowledge) and those without such knowledge (−Prior Knowledge). Each group was divided into four conditions. Two (Pre-EI and Pre+During-EI) studied an EI handout prior to a composition task, but only the Pre+During-EI learners were allowed to refer to it during the task. The Post-EI learners received the handout after completing the task to use to revise their texts. The control group only completed the task. An error correction test and a text reconstruction test were used as pre- and posttests. Results showed that whereas the −Prior Knowledge learners benefited more from receiving the EI prewriting than postwriting, the +Prior Knowledge learners benefited more from the opportunities to consult the EI during or after the writing task.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 129 - 166
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

This study was funded by the School of Curriculum and Pedagogy PBRF Funding from the University of Auckland. I am grateful to Scott Aubrey and Mark Donnellan for their help with the data collection. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and journal editors for their insightful comments on the early drafts of this article.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (2014). Phase transitions in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64(1), 1–35. doi:10.1111/lang.12033 Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on “the language learning potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348–363. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006 Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. doi:10.1093/applin/amp016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 657–668. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.4.657 Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2007). Vocabulary learning from dictionary referencing and language feedback in EFL translational writing. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 413–431. doi:10.1177/1362168807080961 Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book. New York: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Christianson, K. (1997). Dictionary use by EFL writers: What really happens? Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 23–43. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90004-7 Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspective on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–262).Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x Google Scholar
Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257–268. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.03.004 Google Scholar
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Franks, J., Bilbrey, C., Lien, K., & McNamara, T. (2000). Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP). Memory & Cognition, 28(7), 1140–1151. doi:10.3758/BF03211815 Google Scholar
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329–344. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb01108.x Google Scholar
Galbraith, D., Van Waes, L., & Torrance, M. (2007). Introduction. In Torrance, M., v. Waes, L., & Galbraith, D. (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 1–10). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2011). Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners. System, 39(1), 63–77. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.01.011 Google Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 421–452. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ Google Scholar
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving l2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. doi:10.1111/modl.12189 Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 557–584. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ Google Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368–392. doi:10.1177/026765830101700405 Google Scholar
Roehr, K. (2008). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 173–199. doi:10.1093/applin/amm037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehr, K. (2010). Explicit knowledge and learning in SLA: A cognitive linguistics perspective. AILA Review, 23, 7–29. doi:10.1075/aila.23.02roe Google Scholar
Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 511–553. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ Google Scholar
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100. doi:10.1017/S0272263107070039 Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. (2015). Computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.993400 Google Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(3), 286–306. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ understanding and use of two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. doi:10.1111/lang.12029 Google Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1991). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 205–216. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.59.2.205 Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87. doi:10.1017/S0261444800012799 Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00115.x Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidelhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2008). Lexical learning through a multitask activity: The role of repetition. In Fortune, T. W. & Tedick, D. J. (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 119–132). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237–246. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400007827 Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 113–134). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wang, G., & Wang, S.-D. (2014). Explicit grammar instruction for EFL writing and editing: An exploratory study at a Korean university. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 2, 65–73. doi:10.13189/lls.2014.020204 Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00103 Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Shintani supplementary material

Appendices

Download Shintani supplementary material(File)
File 31.5 KB