The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Should We Listen or Read? Modality Effects in Implicit and Explicit Knowledge
Abstract
We examined the role of modality in learning second language (L2) grammar and forming implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious) knowledge. To this end, we isolated the effects of the physical medium of input (i.e., aural or visual) from those of the presentation method (i.e., word‐by‐word or simultaneous). We also explored the role of test modality in L2 performance, by including L2 knowledge tests in both aural and visual modes. Native English speakers engaged in meaning‐focused integrated practice of 3 German syntactic rules. In Experiment 1, learners were given aural or visual word‐by‐word (rapid serial visual presentation; RSVP) input and in Experiment 2, they were given aural or natural written input. We found evidence of learning across all 4 groups, but different types of resultant knowledge. In particular, learners gained explicit knowledge in all input modalities, yet only those trained with natural written input also developed robust implicit knowledge. We conclude that the permanence of visual input may be a critical advantage for beginning learners to develop implicit knowledge of word order rules. Support in the form of written materials can ease the cognitive burden on beginning learners, with better outcomes as a result.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“the more permanent nature of written stimuli can support (literate and educated) L2 learners at the beginner level (Kim & Godfroid, 2019)”
From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Kim & Godfroid, 2019
Citations
Cites
Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results
Dienes, Z. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781 · Cited by 1,998
Schmidt, R. (2001) · Cognition and Second Language Instruction · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524780.003 · Cited by 1,322
Research works printed but not linked: 56
- 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01053.x · DOI
- 10.1093/applin/3.3.181 · DOI
- 10.3758/s13414-013-0475-4 · DOI
- 10.1111/modl.12460 · DOI
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01284 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.24 · DOI
- 10.1080/09541440802097951 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.12.2.268 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00426-004-0208-3 · DOI
- 10.21832/9781847691767-003 · DOI
- 10.1016/0022-5371(76)90046-3 · DOI
- 10.1111/cogs.12257 · DOI
- Field A., 2012, Discovering statistics using R
- 10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.010 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0267190515000112 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263115000388 · DOI
- 10.4324/9781315775616 · DOI
- 10.1111/lang.12136 · DOI
- 10.1006/cogp.1997.0654 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263110000045 · DOI
- 10.3138/cmlr.66.3.371 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00708.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.208 · DOI
- 10.1075/sibil.48.16kac · DOI
- 10.1075/tblt.7.08kor · DOI
- Kuiken F., 2012, The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, 364
- 10.1017/CBO9780511667275.004 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263110000525 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00637.x · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263114000333 · DOI
- 10.1075/lllt.45.10gar · DOI
- Miller Z. F., 2020, Emotions in incidental language learning: An individual differences approach, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- 10.1111/lang.12292 · DOI
- 10.1191/026765897671676818 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03202613 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.039 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0305000902005111 · DOI
- Rebuschat P., 2008, Implicit learning of natural language syntax
- 10.1111/lang.12010 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263115000145 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0142716411000580 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.heares.2009.04.009 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.047 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0142716415000247 · DOI
- 10.1006/jmla.2001.2839 · DOI
- Sherrick C. E., 1986, Handbook of perception and human performance, Vol. I: Sensory processes and perception, 1
- 10.1017/S0272263116000036 · DOI
- 10.1075/tblt.7.09tav · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263115000455 · DOI
- 10.1111/lang.12228 · DOI
- 10.1075/sibil.48.09wal · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263105050138 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263101003023 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MIDHWAH, A. A., & ALHAWARY, M. T. (2020) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12642 · Cited by 41
The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction
Roehr‐Brackin, K., Baranowska, K., Pavlekovic, R., & Scheffler, P. (2024) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12963 · Cited by 9
Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2021) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263120000686 · Cited by 12
Ward, D. F. B., & Lo, Y. Y. (2023) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103094 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- KIM, K. M., & GODFROID, A.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University Second Language Studies Program B220 Wells Hall, 619 Red Cedar Road East Lansing MI 48824
- Michigan State University Second Language Studies Program B253 Wells Hall, 619 Red Cedar Road East Lansing MI 48824
- Venue
- The Modern Language Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-08-02
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 648-664
- ISSN
- 0026-7902
- 1540-4781
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Michigan State University
- Keimyung University
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review