The Potential Relationship Between Openness and Explicit Versus Implicit L2 Knowledge

Jackson, Daniel O.

doi:10.1007/s10936-018-9603-6

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the implicit form of knowledge seems difficult to exploit in generation tasks (e.g., Jimenez, Mendez, & Cleeremans, 1996), it would be interesting to investigate whether the knowledge acquired under incidental or explicit conditions can transfer to production ability. Second, the present study did not consider individual differences, such as working memory, procedural memory, and personality (e.g., Denhovska & Serratrice, 2017;Denhovska, Serratrice, & Payne, 2016;Jackson, 2018;Tagarelli, Ruiz, Vega, & Rebuschat, 2016), which may influence different aspects of incidental and explicit learning. Finally, the current experiment did not examine the impact of prior knowledge about the target rule participants may have possessed.…”

Section: Research Questionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incidental and explicit learning of L2 derivational morphology and the nature of acquired knowledge

Ishikawa

2019

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the current study was to compare both incidental and explicit auditory learning of second language derivational morphology by measuring the accuracy and the reaction time of a grammaticality judgment task. Furthermore, the study was set up to examine the nature of acquired knowledge using subjective measures of awareness during the testing phases and postexperimental verbal reports. The delayed effects of learning were investigated by testing participants immediately after the learning and 1 week later also. The results showed a significant learning effect for the incidental and explicit learners immediately after exposure, but only the explicit learners maintained the learning effects a week later. Both types of learners showed no significant difference in the reaction time. Incidental learners primarily developed implicit knowledge, while explicit learners relied on explicit knowledge to a large extent, part of which became unconscious later. The differences of learning under incidental and explicit learning conditions are discussed in terms of the maintenance of knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Research Questionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Whether the knowledge acquired during the learning phases is implicit or explicit was assessed using two types of subjective measure of awareness: confidence ratings and source attributions. Binominal tests were used to determine whether performance was above chance (Jackson, 2018;Marsden et al, 2013).…”

Section: Subjective Measures Of Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidental and explicit learning of L2 derivational morphology and the nature of acquired knowledge

Ishikawa

2019

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the studies with findings of relationships between personality traits and L2 learning have not been consistent. Some studies have found that certain personality traits could enhance language learning (Jackson, 2019;Zhang, 2008), whereas others have suggested possible negative impact of some personality traits (Dewaele, 2013;Piechurska-Kuciel, 2019). From different studies, these were conflicting findings about the relationships with L2 learning as manifested across personality traits (Busch, 1982;Carrell et al, 1996;Chen & Xu, 2015;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Big Five Personality Traits and Second Language Learning: a Meta-analysis of 40 Years’ Research

Chen

Swanson

et al. 2021

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite numerous studies involving personality traits and second language (L2) learning achievement over many years, there is a lack of an overall picture about how personality traits are related to L2 learning achievement. This study aims to conduct a systematic quantitative synthesis of the studies that examined the relationships between the Big Five personality traits and L2 learning achievement. A total of 137 correlation coefficients from 31 primary studies conducted in 24 countries, with a total cumulative sample size of 8853 and published between 1982 and 2020, were included in this synthesis. The findings showed that openness to experience (r = .

show abstract

“…However, despite extensive research on the potential effects of individual differences on L2 learning (see Li, 2017a;Pawlak, 2017, for recent reviews), there are still relatively few studies that have explored the interaction between individual differences and instructional conditions or treatments (e.g., Ando et al, 1992;Tagarelli et al, 2015;Ruiz et al, 2018;Benson and DeKeyser, 2018;Faretta-Stutenberg and Morgan-Short, 2018;Indrarathne and Kormos, 2018;Malone, 2018;Suzuki and DeKeyser, 2017; see Granena and Yilmaz, 2018;Vatz et al, 2013, for reviews). This kind of interactional research (Li, 2017a) examines the extent to which pedagogical treatments are more or less effective depending on learners' personal characteristics or aptitudes, such as personality (Jackson, 2019), learning styles (Grey et al, 2015), language aptitude , working memory (Indrarathne and Kormos, 2018), and declarative memory or procedural memory (Faretta-Stutenberg and Morgan-Short, 2018), to name but a few. Examining these aptitude-treatment interactions (Cronbach and Snow, 1977) will potentially inform the design of pedagogical interventions that can suit learners' characteristics, thereby optimizing L2 teaching and learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ando et al, 1992;Benson & DeKeyser, 2018;Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2018;Indrarathne & Kormos, 2018;Malone, 2018;Ruiz et al, 2018;Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017;Tagarelli et al, 2015Tagarelli et al, , 2016 for reviews, see Granena & Yilmaz, 2018;Vatz et al, 2013). This kind of interactional research (Li, 2017a) examines the extent to which pedagogical treatments are more or less effective depending on learners' personal characteristics or aptitudes, such as personality (Jackson, 2019), learning styles (Grey et al, 2015), language aptitude , working memory (Indrarathne & Kormos, 2018), and declarative memory or procedural memory (Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2018), to name but a few. Examining these aptitude-treatment interactions (Cronbach & Snow, 1977) will potentially inform the design of pedagogical interventions that can suit learners' characteristics, thereby optimizing L2 teaching and learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of working memory and declarative memory on instructed second language vocabulary learning: Insights from intelligent CALL

Ruíz

Rebuschat

Meurers

2019

Language Teaching Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent to which learners benefit from instruction may be largely dependent on their individual abilities. However, there is relatively little work on the interaction between instructional effectiveness in second language learning and learner individual factors. In this study, we investigated the relationship between instruction, individual differences in cognitive abilities (working memory and declarative memory), and second language vocabulary acquisition in the context of web-based intelligent computer assisted language learning (ICALL). To this end, 127 adult learners of English, predominantly advanced-level, German-speaking learners, read news texts on the web for about two weeks using an ICALL system under two instructional conditions: form-focused and meaning-focused instruction. Learners in the form-focused condition read and completed automatically-generated multiple-choice gaps where phrasal verbs appeared in the text, while learners in the meaning-focused condition simply read and did not complete any gaps. Mixed-effects regression analyses showed that working memory was associated with vocabulary acquisition and that this association depended on the instructional context, with working memory being predictive of learning only in the form-focused condition, suggesting an aptitude-treatment interaction. Furthermore, declarative memory abilities were related to learning only as measured by the Continuous Visual Memory Task, and the relationship was not moderated by instructional condition. Overall, the study contributes to accounting for variability in second language learning in general, as well as in instructional contexts supported by intelligent CALL.

show abstract

The Potential Relationship Between Openness and Explicit Versus Implicit L2 Knowledge

Cited by 3 publications

References 38 publications

Incidental and explicit learning of L2 derivational morphology and the nature of acquired knowledge

Incidental and explicit learning of L2 derivational morphology and the nature of acquired knowledge

Big Five Personality Traits and Second Language Learning: a Meta-analysis of 40 Years’ Research

The effects of working memory and declarative memory on instructed second language vocabulary learning: Insights from intelligent CALL

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About