Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-wr9vw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-24T20:40:56.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploratory research on second language practice distribution: An Aptitude × Treatment interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2016

YUICHI SUZUKI  and
ROBERT DEKEYSER
YUICHI SUZUKI*
Affiliation:
Kanagawa University
ROBERT DEKEYSER
Affiliation:
University of Maryland College Park
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Yuichi Suzuki, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Kanagawa University, 3-27-1, Rokkakubashi, Kanagawa-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa 221–8686, Japan. E-mail: szky819@kanagawa-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current exploratory study aimed at investigating the role of cognitive aptitudes in determining the effect of practice distribution on second language learning. The study investigated to what extent language-analytic ability and working-memory capacity predicted the acquisition of grammar under two learning conditions that differ in the interval between the two training sessions. Learners of Japanese as a second language were trained on an element of Japanese morphosyntax under either distributed practice (7-day interval) or massed practice (1-day interval). The results revealed that language-analytic ability was only related to performance after distributed practice, whereas working-memory capacity was only related to performance after massed practice. These Aptitude × Treatment interaction findings can help establish the learning processes operating under distributed/massed practice conditions.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 27 - 56
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. L. (2003). Aptitude complexes and trait complexes. Educational Psychologist, 38, 85–93. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3802_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bender, R., & Lange, S. (2001). Adjusting for multiple testing—When and how? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Kempe, V., & Sionov, A. (2006). The role of learner and input variables in learning inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. K., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on 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. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test: MLAT. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (2007). Variation in working memory: An introduction. In Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 3–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2013). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 893–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2013). Aptitude . In Robinson, P. (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 27–31). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2013). Optimizing post-critical-period language learning. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 153–175). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2015). Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0142716415000120 Google Scholar
Hwu, F., & Sun, S. (2012). The aptitude-treatment interaction effects on the learning of grammar rules. System, 40, 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D. O. (2014). Learner differences in metalinguistic awareness: Exploring the influence of cognitive abilities and language experience. In Miller, R. T., Eddington, C. M., Henery, A., Miguel, N. Marcos, Tseng, A., Tuninetti, A., et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum: Building bridges between disciplines (pp. 211–226). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 336–358.Google ScholarPubMed
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempe, V., & Brooks, P. J. (2008). Second language learning of complex inflectional systems. Language Learning, 58, 703–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408. doi:10.1093/applin/amu054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., et al. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566. doi:10.1111/lang.12011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2013). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. M. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests. Swansea: Lognostics.Google Scholar
Miles, S. W. (2014). Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for L2 grammar learning. System, 42, 412–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Healy, A. F. & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. doi:10.1111/lang.12079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners' language analytic ability in the communicative classroom. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 159–179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult SLA. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 256–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, D. (2015). Student instruction should be distributed over long time periods. Educational Psychology Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9332-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2007). Increasing retention without increasing study time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 183–186.CrossRefGoogle 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 in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., Lin, H.-J., Lado, B., Stafford, C. A., & Bowden, H. W. (2014). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Serrano, R. (2011). The time factor in EFL classroom practice. Language Learning, 61, 117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, R. (2012). Is time concentration good or bad for learning? Reflecting on the results from the cognitive psychology and from the SLA literature. In Munoz, C. (Ed.), Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning (pp. 3–22). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, R., & Muñoz, C. (2007). Same hours, different time distribution: Any difference in EFL? System, 35, 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41, 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–94). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36, 367–384. doi:10.1093/applin/amu072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1987). Aptitude complexes. In Snow, R. E. & Farr, M. J. (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction (pp. 13–59). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Effects of distributed practice on the proceduralization of morphology. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/ 1362168815617334 Google Scholar
Toppino, T. C., & Bloom, L. C. (2002). The spacing effect, free recall, and two-process theory: A closer look. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 437–444.Google ScholarPubMed
Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, E. (2014). About practice: Repetition, spacing, and abstraction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 60, 113–189.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: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. doi:10.3758/BF03192720 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vance, T. J. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wesche, M. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In Diller, K. C. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119–154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gasss, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar