Perceived Learning Difficulty and Actual Performance

Abstract

This paper draws on an approach that conceptualizes L2 learning difficulty in terms of implicit and explicit knowledge. In a study with L1 Mexican Spanish university-level learners (n=30), their teachers (n=11) and applied linguistics experts (n=3), we investigated the relationship between (a) these groups' difficulty judgements of 13 selected L2 English structures and (b) perceived learning difficulty and learners' actual performance on measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Our findings show that experts' learning difficulty judgements did not lead to significant predictions, while the learners' own difficulty rankings correlated significantly with their performance on the measure of explicit knowledge.Although correlations based on teachers' difficulty rankings did not reach statistical significance, the judgements of this group were the only ones which showed trends towards successful prediction of learners' performance on both the implicit and the explicit L2 measures. Thus, the teachers exhibited a trend towards the best overall prediction ability.

Introduction: Cognitive Perspectives on Difficulty and Complexity in L2 Acquisition

“…Thus defined, L2 difficulty can be operationalized and empirically gauged by means of subjective, holistic ratings (e.g., by experts, language teachers, or language learners themselves; see Rodriguez Silva & Roehr-Brackin, 2016), introspective methods (e.g., think-aloud protocols; see also Cerezo, Caras, & Leow, 2016), objective measurements of time spent on task (e.g., reaction times; see Godfroid, 2016), or psychophysiological measures such as brain activity (e.g., Event-Related Potentials; Morgan-Short, Sanz, Steinhauer, & Ullman, 2010) and eye movements (e.g., eye tracking; Godfroid & Uggen, 2013; Simoens & Housen, 2016). In sum, a language feature is more difficult than another if its processing and learning requires more time and/or more mental activity from a particular language learner in a particular learning context.…”

“…Importantly, pedagogical language rules are different from the underlying target language features themselves (i.e., from the perceived or intuited “rule-like” patterns of covariance in the input) and, likewise, the complexity of a language feature and the complexity of its corresponding pedagogical rule are not the same (e.g., simple patterns of structural covariance can be described by means of either simple or elaborate metalinguistic propositions; Housen et al, 2005). Rodríguez Silva and Roehr-Brackin (2016) relate the distinction between pedagogical-metalinguistic rules, on the one hand, and the underlying linguistic representations that these rules aim to capture, on the other hand, to the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge in SLA. Pedagogical rules may be either difficult or easy to learn as explicit, declarative knowledge, but the complexities of the underlying language features themselves relate primarily to the difficulty of learning them as implicit knowledge (as determined by their objective intrinsic and input-related complexity differentials; see also Dietz, 2002; R. Ellis, 2006; Housen, 2014; Rodríguez Silva & Roehr-Brackin, 2016).…”

“…Rodríguez Silva and Roehr-Brackin (2016) relate the distinction between pedagogical-metalinguistic rules, on the one hand, and the underlying linguistic representations that these rules aim to capture, on the other hand, to the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge in SLA. Pedagogical rules may be either difficult or easy to learn as explicit, declarative knowledge, but the complexities of the underlying language features themselves relate primarily to the difficulty of learning them as implicit knowledge (as determined by their objective intrinsic and input-related complexity differentials; see also Dietz, 2002; R. Ellis, 2006; Housen, 2014; Rodríguez Silva & Roehr-Brackin, 2016). In contrast, the complexity and explicit learning difficulty of pedagogical language rules are a function of factors such as the elaborateness (the number of concepts, steps, subrules, or criteria they contain), conceptual clarity (amount and degree of technicality of metalanguage used), scope (with general rules vs. specific rules), and reliability and truth value (number of exceptions) of the rules (Hulstijn & de Graaff, 1994; Dietz, 2002; Rodríguez Silva & Roehr-Brackin, 2016).…”

Which Forms Should Be Taught Explicitly? A Theoretical Framework

“…There has been considerable debate in the field of second language teaching over the years as to whether or not grammar should be taught explicitly (Daloglu, 2020;Ellis, 2006), and, if so, what grammar should be taught (Silva & Roehr-Brackin, 2016). While there has been a great deal of research, not all studies are conclusive, and many can be interpreted in different ways.…”