Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:53:05.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2015

YUCEL YILMAZ  and
GISELA GRANENA
YUCEL YILMAZ*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
GISELA GRANENA
Affiliation:
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
*
Address for correspondence: Yucel Yilmaz, Memorial Hall 303, Bloomington, IN 47408[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the extent to which cognitive abilities that involve explicit cognitive processes (i.e., explicit language aptitude) are related to second language (L2) learning outcomes under two corrective feedback conditions. The study followed a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest experimental design. Forty-eight L2 learners of English carried out three oral production tasks, in which their errors on the indefinite article were treated according to their group assignment (i.e., explicit, implicit, and no-feedback). A set of controlled oral production tests was administered as pretest and posttest. Explicit language aptitude was measured using three subtests from the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test battery (Meara, 2005). Results showed that explicit language aptitude predicted immediate posttest performance only under the explicit feedback condition, suggesting that this type of feedback requires mental processes that are facilitated by explicit cognitive abilities and that its short-term effectiveness is not the same for learners with different aptitude levels.

Keywords

Explicit learningcorrective feedbacklanguage aptitudeindividual differencesrecastsimplicit learningEnglish articlesexplicit correction
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 147 - 161
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

*

We would like to thank Natasha Tokowicz, Paul Meara, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Final responsibility for any errors remains our own.

References

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In Diller, K.C. (ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, pp. 83–118. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test: Form A. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Corno, L., Cronbach, L. J., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D. F., Mandinach, E. B., Porteus, A.W., & Talbert, J. E. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, pp. 114–138. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: CUP.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, pp. 339–360. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. London: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (in press). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2012). Age differences and cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning in ultimate L2 attainment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, L.L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, H. (2010). Negative evidence and its explicitness and positioning in the learning of Korean as a heritage language. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 582–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jimenez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Küntay, A. C. (2002). Development of the expression of indefiniteness: Presenting new referents in Turkish picture-series stories. Discourse Processes, 33 (1), 77–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J., Hughes, M., Campbell, S., Silbert, N., Tare, M., Jackson, S., Smith, B., Bunting, M., & Doughty, C. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, pp. 361–377. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Mackey, In A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies, pp. 408–452. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning, pp. 181–209. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Master, P. (2002). Information structure and English article pedagogy. System, 30, 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests. Lognostics.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Otto, L. (2002). Magyar Egyseges Nyelverzekmero Teszt. Unpublished material.Google Scholar
Pett, M., Lackey, N., & Sullivan, J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1983). Methods of Morpheme Quantification: Their Effect on the Interpretation of Second Language Data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, pp. 133–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition. A series of empirical studies, pp. 212–228. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, pp. 301–322. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning, pp. 69–93. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2011). Subcomponents of secondlanguage aptitude and second-language proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 95, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, pp. 144–171. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. J. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment, pp. 271–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Woltz, D. J. (2003). Implicit cognitive processes as aptitudes for learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, H. D., Dediu, D., Roberts, L., van Oort, E., Norris, D. G., & Hagoort, P. (2012). The Structural Connectivity Underpinning Language Aptitude, Working Memory, and IQ in the Perisylvian Language Network. Language Learning, 62, 110–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 6, 1134–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). Relative Effects of Explicit and Implicit Feedback: The Role of Working Memory Capacity and Language Analytic Ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013b). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar