The effects of proactive form-focused instruction and individual differences on second language acquisition
Abstract
This study investigated the extent to which second language (L2) learners benefited from proactive form-focused instruction (FFI) targeting French grammatical gender attribution and the degree to which L2 learners’ attention control and working memory predicted their learning gains. A total of 102 L2 learners received either proactive FFI targeting French grammatical gender attribution or their regular instruction (i.e. control condition) for six 80-minute instructional sessions. A pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest were administered, each entailing binary-choice, text-completion, picture-description, and listening tasks. The L2 learners also completed the Simon Test and the Corsi Block-Tapping Test, which measured their attention control and working memory. Results showed that L2 learners receiving the proactive FFI condition significantly outperformed those receiving the control condition in all tasks after the instructional sessions. More importantly, L2 learners’ attention control and working memory were significant predictors of their learning gains in the binary-choice and listening tasks, but not in the text-completion and picture-description tasks. The current study highlighted the roles of L2 learners’ attention control and working memory in proactive FFI.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Lee (2021) found that explicit instruction enhanced adult learners' accuracy in producing verb forms using Input Processing Theory.
“Lee (2021) conducted a study with adult learners using the Input Processing Theory and found that explicit instruction enhanced learners' accuracy in producing verb forms.”
From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Lee (2021)
Explicit morphological instruction can result in language acquisition and better morphological structure.
“The findings support previous studies concerning the application of the Input Processing Theory and the Processability Theory in explicit morphological instruction, which can result in language acquisition and better morphological structure (Lee, 2021;Khan, 2022;Schenck, 2022).”
From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Lee, 2021
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 74 · Cited by 6
- Authors
- Lee, A. H.
- Affiliations
- Brock University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Andrew H.
- ORCID
- Lee, Andrew H.
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-10-13
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2354-2384
- ISSN
- 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0954
- OpenAlex
- W3205616162
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 5.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Teaching Research (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (430-2017-00372)
- Language Learning Dissertation Grant (Andrew Lee)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- second language acquisition, attentional control, working memory, individual differences, second language learners, Corsi block-tapping test
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