Optimizing Language struction: Matters of Explicitness, Practice, and Cue Learning

Language Learning

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 741-768

  Stafford, Catherine A ^a   Bowden, Harriet Wood ^b   Sanz, Cristina ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^c GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Competition model; Computer assisted language learning; Explicit instruction; Feedback; Latin; Put based instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865315650     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: 14679922     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00648.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173-218). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Cook, V. (2009). Language user groups and language teaching. V. Cook & L. Wei (Eds.), Contemporary applied linguistics: Vol. 1. Language teaching and learning (pp. 54-74). London: Continuum.
4. Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164-194.
5. Farley, A. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227-239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277-305.
7. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
8. Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA: A partial replication and a response to Fernández (2008). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559-575.
9. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based learning. G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: tegrating theory and practice (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
10. MacWhinney, B. (2005). New directions in the Competition Model. M. Tomasello & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 81-110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60, 154-193.
12. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
13. Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback and Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 192-216.
14. Rosa, E. M., & O'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.
15. Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241-255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
17. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2005). Explicitness in pedagogical interventions: put, practice, and feedback. C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 234-263). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
18. VanPatten, B. (2005). Processing instruction. C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 267-281). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
19. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
20. Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Wong, W. (2009). Rethinking a focus on grammar: From drills to processing instruction-data from the French subjunctive. S. L. Katz & J. Watzinger-Tharp (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 grammar: Theoretical approaches and their application in the L2 classroom (pp. 72-92). Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning.