Investigating Distribution of Practice Effects for the Learning of Foreign Language Verb Morphology in the Young Learner Classroom

Abstract

Within limited‐input language classrooms, understanding the effect of distribution of practice (spacing between practice) on learning is critical, yet evidence is conflicting and of limited relevance for young learners. For second language (L2) grammar learning, some studies reveal advantages for spacing of 7 days or more, but others for shorter spacing. Further, little is known about the role of cognitive individual differences (e.g., language analytic ability; LAA) in mediating practice distribution effects for L2 grammatical knowledge development and retention. To address this gap, this classroom‐based study investigated whether distribution of practice and LAA moderated the effectiveness of explicit, input‐based grammar instruction for young first language (L1) English learners of French (aged 8 to 11). The study revealed minimal differences between longer (7‐day) versus shorter (3.5‐day) spacing of practice for learning a French verb inflection subsystem, at either posttest or delayed posttest. Minimal group‐level gains and substantial within‐group variation in performance at posttests were observed. Accuracy of practice during training and LAA were significantly associated with posttest performance under both practice schedules. These findings indicated that within an ecologically valid classroom context, differences in distribution of practice had limited impact on learner performance on our tests; rather, individual learner differences were more critical in moderating learning. This highlights the importance of considering individual learner differences in the development of resources and the potential of digital tools for dynamically adapting instruction to suit individuals.

Using Explicit Instruction About L1 to Reduce Crosslinguistic Effects in L2 Grammar Learning: Evidence From Oral Production in L2 French

“…These limitations notwithstanding, our findings provide a number of directions for future research on differences between instructional components and their impact on L2 learning. For example, it is unclear whether systematic production practice (L2 vs. L2+L1), instead of comprehension practice, would lead to the same learning gains, or the extent to which altering the amount or spacing of practice would affect the findings (see Kasprowicz & Marsden, ; Suzuki, ). As previously noted, learners completed extensive L2 practice, but very little L1 practice in comparison.…”

Perfecting Practice

“…Kasprowicz, Marsden, and Stephton () contextualize their research in foreign language instruction among primary school students who spent only a few hours on foreign language learning each week. The study focused on young learners of French (aged 8–11) whose first language is English.…”

“…Kasprowicz, Marsden, and Stephton's () study is set in the context of foreign language instruction for young children in schools, a population which, as the authors point out, is greatly ‘under‐researched’ in SLA studies, particularly studies that take a psycholinguistic approach to language learning. And yet, the question of how aspects of practice affect learning outcomes with this population is especially needed in light of the widely held belief that young learners are somehow ‘better’ learners, whose learning proceeds with little effort.…”

“…My own research was carried out primarily in classrooms where children and adolescents were learning a new language. The learning environments were quite different from those of most learners who were the participants in the studies in this special issue (with the exception of the study by Kasprowicz, Marsden, & Stephton, ). In the classes where I did my research, time for learning a new language was measured in tens of hours or, at best, in hundreds of hours over the span of several years of primary and secondary education.…”

Empirical Feasibility of the Desirable Difficulty Framework: Toward More Systematic Research on L2 Practice for Broader Pedagogical Implications

“…Similarly, Strong and Boers () reported that the retrieval condition led to more successful performance during learning (88%) than the trial‐and‐error condition (18%). Kasprowicz, Marsden, and Sephton () did not find a statistically significant difference between long and short spacing in learning phase performance (7‐day: 79.6%, 3.5‐day: 82.5%). However, a number of studies demonstrate that long spacing induces more errors during the learning phase than short spacing (e.g., Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, ; Nakata & Suzuki, ; Nakata & Webb, ; Pashler, Zarow, & Triplett, ; Toppino & Gerbier, ).…”