Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:17:36.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPLORING THE VERIDICALITY AND REACTIVITY OF SUBJECTIVE MEASURES OF AWARENESS

IS A “GUESS” REALLY A GUESS?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2020

Rebecca Sachs Open the ORCID record for Rebecca Sachs [Opens in a new window] ,
Phillip Hamrick Open the ORCID record for Phillip Hamrick [Opens in a new window] ,
Timothy J. McCormick Open the ORCID record for Timothy J. McCormick [Opens in a new window]  and
Ronald P. Leow Open the ORCID record for Ronald P. Leow [Opens in a new window]
Rebecca Sachs*
Affiliation:
Virginia International University
Phillip Hamrick
Affiliation:
Kent State University
Timothy J. McCormick
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Ronald P. Leow
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebecca Sachs, School of Education, Virginia International University, 4401 Village Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subjective measures (SMs) of awareness assume (a) participants can accurately report the implicit/explicit status of their knowledge and (b) the act of reporting does not change that knowledge. However, SMs suffer from nonveridicality (e.g., overreporting of “guess” responses) and reactivity (e.g., prompting rule search). Attempting to improve the validity of “guess” responses, we conducted an exploratory mixed-methods replication of Rebuschat et al. (2013). Participants (N = 30) were randomly assigned to Traditional, True Guess, and NoSMs conditions. True Guess participants were led to believe the computer would replace “guess” responses with random answers. Confirming that SMs are reactive, Traditional and True Guess participants responded more slowly and accurately, with greater awareness of the linguistic target. Moreover, although True Guess participants responded “guess” less frequently, interviews revealed this was due not to greater veridicality, but rather to additional reactivity. We conclude with directions for further research to enhance the validity of SMs.

Type
Research Report
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , September 2020 , pp. 919 - 932
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

The authors would like to thank Stephanie Leow, Nymisha Mattapalli, and Van To for their assistance in data collection and transcription, and the reviewers for their very helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

References

REFERENCES

Dienes, Z., & Scott, R. (2005). Measuring unconscious knowledge: Distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychological Research, 69, 338–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2011). Learning without awareness reconsidered: A replication of Williams (2005). In Granena, G., Koeth, J., Lee-Ellis, S., Lukyanchenko, A., Botana, G. P., & Rhoades, E. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2010 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 18–28). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Halpert, R., & Hill, R. (2011). 28 measures of locus of control. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/11010080/28-measures-of-locus-of-control-the-webs-most-useful-informationGoogle Scholar
Hama, M., & Leow, R. P. (2010). Learning without awareness revisited: Extending Williams (2005). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamrick, P., & Rebuschat, P. (2012). How implicit is statistical learning? In Rebuschat, P. & Williams, J. (Ed.), Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 365–382). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P., & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Frequency effects, learning conditions, and the development of implicit and explicit lexical knowledge. In Connor-Linton, J. & Amoroso, L. (Eds.) Measured language: Quantitative approaches to acquisition, assessment, processing, and variation (pp. 125–140). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P., & Sachs, R. (2018). Establishing evidence of learning in experiments employing artificial linguistic systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015a). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015b). Implicit learning in SLA: Of processes and products. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 47–65). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Hama, M. (2013). Implicit learning in SLA and the issue of internal validity: A response to Leung and Williams’ “The implicit learning of mappings between forms and contextually derived meanings”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., Johnson, E., & Zárate-Sández, G. (2011). Getting a grip on the slippery construct of awareness: Toward a finer-grained methodological perspective. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. P. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit conditions, processes and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 61–72). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Leung, J. H. C., & Williams, J. N. (2011). The implicit learning of mappings between forms and contextually derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, J. H. C., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Constraints on implicit learning of grammatical form-meaning connections. Language Learning, 62, 634–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In Mackey, A. & Marsden, E. (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS Repository of Instruments for Research into Second Languages (pp. 1–21). Routledge. https://www.iris-database.orgGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research: A review. Language Learning, 63, 595–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P., Hamrick, P., Riestenberg, K., Sachs, R., & Ziegler, N. (2015). Triangulating measures of awareness: A contribution to the debate on learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 299–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P., Hamrick, P., Sachs, R., Riestenberg, K., & Ziegler, N. (2013) Implicit and explicit knowledge of form meaning connections: Evidence from subjective measures of awareness. In Bergsleithner, J., Frota, S., & Yoshioka, J. K. (Eds.), Noticing: L2 studies and essays in honor of Dick Schmidt (pp. 255–275). University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 293–316.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sachs et al. supplementary material

Sachs et al. supplementary material

Download Sachs et al. supplementary material(File)
File 41.9 KB