scholarly journals SIGNATURES OF AUTOMATICITY DURING PRACTICE: EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION ABOUT L1 PROCESSING ROUTINES CAN IMPROVE L2 GRAMMATICAL PROCESSING

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McManus ◽  
Emma Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Grammar Learning ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Knowledge Restructuring ◽  
Accuracy Speed ◽  
Over Time

This study examined the extent to which explicit instruction about L1 and L2 processing routines improved the accuracy, speed, and automaticity of learners’ responses during sentence interpretation practice. Fifty-three English-speaking learners of L2 French were assigned to one of the following treatments: (1) a ‘core’ treatment consisting of L2 explicit information (EI) with L2 interpretation practice (L2-only group), (2) the same L2 core + L1 practice with L1 EI (L2+L1 group), or (3) the same L2 core + L1 practice but without L1 EI (L2+L1prac group). Findings indicated that increasing amounts of practice led to more accurate and faster performance only for learners who received L1 EI (L2+L1 group). Coefficient of Variation analyses (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993) indicated knowledge restructuring early on that appeared to lead to gradual automatization over time (Solovyeva and DeKeyser, 2017; Suzuki, 2017). Our findings that EI and practice about L1 processing routines benefited the accuracy, speed, and automaticity of L2 performance have major implications for theories of L2 learning, the role of L1 EI in L2 grammar learning, and L2 pedagogy.

scholarly journals Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
KEVIN MCMANUS ◽  
EMMA MARSDEN
Keyword(s):  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Grammar Learning ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Group B ◽  
Knowledge Restructuring ◽  
Accuracy Speed ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACTThis study examined the extent to which explicit instruction about first language (L1) and second language (L2) processing routines improved the accuracy, speed, and automaticity of learners’ responses during sentence interpretation practice. Fifty-three English-speaking learners of L2 French were assigned to one of the following treatments: (a) a “core” treatment consisting of L2 explicit information (EI) with L2 interpretation practice (L2-only group); (b) the same L2 core+L1 practice with L1 EI (L2+L1 group); or (c) the same L2 core+L1 practice but without L1 EI (L2+L1prac group). Findings indicated that increasing amounts of practice led to more accurate and faster performance only for learners who received L1 EI (L2+L1 group). Coefficient of variation analyses (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993) indicated knowledge restructuring early on that appeared to lead to gradual automatization over time (Solovyeva & DeKeyser, 2017; Suzuki, 2017). Our findings that EI and practice about L1 processing routines benefited the accuracy, speed, and automaticity of L2 performance have major implications for theories of L2 learning, the role of L1 EI in L2 grammar learning, and L2 pedagogy.

scholarly journals ONLINE AND OFFLINE EFFECTS OF L1 PRACTICE IN L2 GRAMMAR LEARNING

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McManus ◽  
Emma Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Learning Gains ◽  
Explicit Information ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Grammar Learning ◽  
Offline Learning ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
English Speaking

AbstractThis study partially replicates McManus and Marsden (2017), who found that providing L1 explicit information (EI) plus task-essential practice led L2 learners to make more accurate and faster interpretations of French morphosyntax. The current study removed the original study’s L1 EI component to examine the role of the L1 practice. This design tested whether providing L1 task-essential practice only (alongside a core treatment of L2 EI plus L2 practice) resulted in similar online and offline learning gains compared to the original study’s L1 EI plus L1 practice. We used the same online and offline tests, with a similar population of English-speaking learners of L2 French (n = 19). For accuracy and speed of online and offline L2 processing, the findings suggest that additional L1 practice without L1 EI was no more beneficial than L2 EI plus L2 practice alone, indicating that the original study’s combination of additional L1 EI with L1 practice appeared to contribute to previously observed learning benefits.

scholarly journals L1 EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION CAN IMPROVE L2 ONLINE AND OFFLINE PERFORMANCE

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McManus ◽  
Emma Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Context Sentence ◽  
Explicit Information ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Sentence Matching ◽  
Online Sentence Processing ◽  
L1 English

This study investigated the effectiveness of providing L1 explicit information (EI) with practice for making more accurate and faster interpretations of L2 FrenchImparfait(IMP). Two treatments were investigated: (a) “L2-only,” providing EI about the L2 with L2 interpretation practice, and (b) “L2+L1,” providing the exact same L2-only treatment and including EI about the L1 (English) with practice interpreting L1 features that are equivalent to the IMP. Fifty L2 French learners were randomly assigned to either L2-only, L2+L1, or a control group. Online (self-paced reading) and offline (context-sentence matching) measures from pretest, posttest, and delayed posttests showed that providing additional L1 EI and practice improved not only offline L2 accuracy, but also the speed of online L2 processing. To our knowledge, this makes original and significant contributions about the nature of EI with practice and the role of the L1 (Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2014), and it extends a recent line of research examining EI effects in online sentence processing (Andringa & Curcic, 2015).

On the role of discourse-level information in second-language sentence processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 698-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELSI KAISER
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Memory Retrieval ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Shallow Structure Hypothesis ◽  
Level Information ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Shallow Structure

Based on a detailed review of existing studies of high-proficiency second-language (L2) learners who acquired the L2 in adolescence/adulthood, Cunnings (Cunnings, 2016) argues that Sorace's (2011) Interface Hypothesis (IH) and Clahsen and Felser's (2006) Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH) do not explain the existing data as well as his memory-based approach which posits that memory-retrieval processes in the L1 and L2 do not pattern alike. Cunnings proposes that L1 and L2 processing differ in terms of comprehenders’ ability to retrieve from memory information constructed during sentence processing. He concludes that L2 processing is more susceptible to interference effects during retrieval, and, most relevantly for this commentary, that discourse-based cues to memory retrieval are more heavily weighted in L2 than L1 processing.

scholarly journals PREDICTION AND ERROR-BASED LEARNING IN L2 PROCESSING AND ACQUISITION

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Giulia Bovolenta ◽  
Emma Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Computational Modeling ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Prediction Error ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract There is currently much interest in the role of prediction in language processing, both in L1 and L2. For language acquisition researchers, this has prompted debate on the role that predictive processing may play in both L1 and L2 language learning, if any. In this conceptual review, we explore the role of prediction and prediction error as a potential learning aid. We examine different proposed prediction mechanisms and the empirical evidence for them, alongside the factors constraining prediction for both L1 and L2 speakers. We then review the evidence on the role of prediction in learning languages. We report computational modeling that underpins a number of proposals on the role of prediction in L1 and L2 learning, then lay out the empirical evidence supporting the predictions made by modeling, from research into priming and adaptation. Finally, we point out the limitations of these mechanisms in both L1 and L2 speakers.

scholarly journals USING EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION ABOUT L1 TO REDUCE CROSSLINGUISTIC EFFECTS IN L2 GRAMMAR LEARNING: EVIDENCE FROM ORAL PRODUCTION IN L2 FRENCH

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McManus ◽  
Emma Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
Verbal Morphology ◽  
Learning Problem ◽  
Oral Production ◽  
Different Types ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
L1 And L2

This study advances previous research about the effects of explicit instruction on second language (L2) development by examining learners’ use of verbal morphology following different types of explicit information (EI) and comprehension practice. We investigated the extent to which additional EI about L1 can reduce the effects of crosslinguistic influence in L2 oral production. Sixty-nine English-speaking learners of L2 French undertook either: (a) a ‘core’ treatment of EI about the L2 with L2 comprehension practice, (b) the same L2 core + L1comprehension practice, (c) the same L2 core + L1 comprehension practice + EI about L1, or (d) outcome tests only. Results showed that providing additional EI about the L1 benefitted the accuracy of oral production immediately after the instruction and then 6 weeks later. These results suggest that tailoring instruction, specifically the nature of the EI, to the nature of the learning problem can facilitate L2 learning. In particular, EI about L1 can facilitate L2 learning by increasing learners’ awareness of similarities and differences in how L1 and L2 express the same meanings.

scholarly journals Crosslinguistic influence and L2 grammar learning: Close replications of Ellis & Sagarra (2011) and Tolentino & Tokowicz (2014)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McManus
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
Learning Problem ◽  
Digital Repositories ◽  
Grammar Learning ◽  
Language Knowledge ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
Advance Knowledge

Investigations of crosslinguistic effects in SLA have contributed rich understandings about the ways in which prior language knowledge and experience can influence additional language learning. Building on this work, one recent line of research has examined the extent to which SLA findings about crosslinguistic influence can be used to improve L2 learning, indicating that explicit instruction tailored to address the nature of the crosslinguistic learning problem can improve L2 learning. At the same time, however, this line of inquiry is relatively novel and under-researched. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to suggest further research which might advance knowledge and understanding about the ways in which explicit instruction can facilitate L2 learning of crosslinguistically difficult target features. To this end, I lay the ground for a series of replications designed to understand the role of prior language knowledge and experience in L2 learning: Ellis and Sagarra (2011) and Tolentino and Tokowicz (2014). These studies were selected because they are grounded in empirical SLA research and SLA theory. In addition, these studies facilitate replication because they have either (i) made their data collection materials available in digital repositories or (ii) have robustly described their design and provided the stimuli used.

scholarly journals Review of the Literature on Stress and Wellbeing of International Students in English-Speaking Countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eman S. Alharbi ◽  
Andrew P. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
International Students ◽  
Social Dynamics ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Over Time

This review aims to address the major sources of stress experienced by international students, the role of individual differences, the chronology of their stress levels and wellbeing over time, and gaps in the existing literature. Two electronic databases (PubMed and Psych Info) were searched for English peer-reviewed articles using eight search terms. Thirty-eight studies were included in this paper and divided into themes and sub-themes including sources of stress, individual differences and mental health including stress, depression and wellbeing. The findings highlight major stressors and show mixed results in some areas due to the lack of homogenous samples based on country of origin or ethnicity and sometimes context differences concerning the country or university social dynamics. Limitations were identified in the methodology, and several recommendations for future research are included.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document