CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers

Hernández, Todd A·2011·Language Teaching Research
DOI 10.1177/1362168810388694
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Expanding on the studies of Hernández (2008) and de la Fuente (2009), this investigation examines the combined effect of explicit instruction (EI) and input flood (IF) vs. IF alone on students’ use of discourse markers to narrate a past event. Participants included 91 English-speaking adults enrolled in fourth-semester college Spanish courses, assigned to the EI + IF group ( n = 36), the IF group ( n = 30), or the control group ( n = 25). The EI + IF group was provided with EI on the function and use of discourse markers. This group also received a flood of input containing the target forms. Students were provided with communicative practice and feedback. In contrast, the IF group did not receive EI + IF on the use of discourse markers. This group received the same flood of input as the EI group. The IF group was presented with communicative practice although there was no feedback. Results of a speaking task administered as a pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test indicated that both treatments had a positive effect on students’ use of discourse markers. Discourse transcripts show that the EI + IF group used more discourse markers to shape their output in student— student communicative exchanges than the IF group. Taken together, results suggest that the combined effect of EI and IF was not superior to IF alone in promoting student use of discourse markers as measured on the post-test speaking tasks.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1362168810388694

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 1999, ACTFL Proficiency guidelines: Speaking
  2. 10.1075/scl.10 · DOI
  3. Alanen, R. ( 1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
  4. Andersen, R.W. ( 1990). Models, processes, principles and strategies: Second language acquisition inside and outside the classroom. In B. VanPatten & J.F. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Foreign language learning (pp. 45-68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  5. 10.2307/3587807 · DOI
  6. Benati, A. ( 2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. 10.1017/S0272263100012158 · DOI
  8. Caycedo Garner, L., 1991, En parejas: A four-book series of communicative activities
  9. Center for Applied Linguistics, 1995, The Spanish speaking test
  10. 10.1017/S0272263197002064 · DOI
  11. 10.1017/S027226310001425X · DOI
  12. 10.1017/S0272263197002040 · DOI · Paper page
  13. de la Fuente, M. ( 2009). The role of pedagogical tasks and focus on form in acquisition of discourse markers by advanced learners. In R.P. Leow, H. Campos & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and acquisition (pp. 211-21). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  14. Doughty, C. & Williams, J. ( 1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Farley, A. ( 2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  16. 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 · DOI
  17. 10.1093/applin/amm030 · DOI
  18. Gass, S., 1997, Input, interaction, and the second language learner
  19. Gass, S., 2000, Stimulated recall methodology in second language research
  20. Hatch, E., 1976, Language Learning (Special issue), 4, 39
  21. Hernández, T.A., 2008, Hispania, 91, 665
  22. Jones, C., 2009, UCLan Journal of Pedagogic Research, 1, 11
  23. Lee, J.F., 2003, Making communicative language teaching happen
  24. 10.1017/S0272263100004046 · DOI
  25. Leow, R.P. ( 2007). Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In R. DeKeyser (Eds.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 21-50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  26. Leow, R.P., 2003, Applied Language Learning, 13, 1
  27. Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. ( 1993). Grammar and task-based learning. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  28. 10.1017/S0272263105050047 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01980.x · DOI
  30. 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00803.x · DOI
  31. 10.1017/S027226310606013X · DOI
  32. 10.21832/9781847691767-014 · DOI
  33. 10.1017/S0272263100014674 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1017/S0272263197002052 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00225.x · DOI
  36. 10.1017/S0272263199004015 · DOI
  37. Rusch, D., 2005, Fuentes: Conversación y gramática
  38. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00248.x · DOI
  39. Schmidt, R. ( 1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i.
  40. 10.1093/applin/17.1.38 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Skehan, P., 1998, A cognitive approach to language learning
  42. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009 · DOI
  43. Swain, M. ( 1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-53). Cambridge, MA : Newbury House.
  44. Swain, M. ( 1995). Three functions of output in second language learning . In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-44). Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  45. Swain, M. ( 1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Swain, M. ( 2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  47. Swain, M. ( 2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-83). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  48. 10.1017/S0272263100011955 · DOI
  49. VanPatten, B. ( 1985). Communicative value and information processing in second language acquisition. In P. Larson, E. Judd, & D.S. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On TESOL: A brave new world for TESOL (pp. 89-100). Washington, DC: TESOL.
  50. VanPatten, B., 1996, Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition: Theory and research
  51. VanPatten, B. ( 2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  52. 10.1017/S0272263100011979 · DOI
  53. 10.1017/S0272263100015394 · DOI
  54. White, J. ( 1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. 10.1111/0023-8333.00103 · DOI
  56. Williams, J. & Evans, J. ( 1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Wong, W. ( 2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  58. Wong, W., 2005, Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom
  59. Yoshimi, D.R. ( 2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners’ use of interactional discourse markers. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hernández, T. A.
Venue
Language Teaching Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-03-14
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
159-182
ISSN
  • 1362-1688
  • 1477-0954
DOI
10.1177/1362168810388694
Cited by
55
References
6
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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