The role of working memory in blocked and interleaved grammar practice: Proceduralization of L2 syntax

Abstract

Prior research showed that interleaved practice (studying multiple skills at once) is more effective than blocked practice (studying only one skill at a time). This study aims to replicate the benefits of interleaved practice on the proceduralization of second language (L2) syntax and further examines the role of working memory (WM) in different practice schedules. Sixty English learners studied five types of relative-clause constructions under either blocked- or interleaved-practice conditions. The blocked-practice group engaged in systematic form-focused speaking practice with exemplars blocked by syntactic category, while the interleaved-practice group received mixed exemplars from the different categories. The proceduralization of grammatical knowledge was measured by analysing the accuracy and speed indices from a picture description test, which was administered immediately and one week after the training session. Learners’ WM capacity was measured using a listening-span task. Results showed that interleaved practice led to more accurate performance on both immediate and delayed posttests than blocked practice. The advantage of interleaved practice was less pronounced for the speed dimension of performance. Furthermore, interleaved practice facilitated skill development regardless of learners’ WM capacity, whereas in the blocked-practice condition, learners with higher WM capacity benefited more than those with lower WM capacity in speeding up of relative clause use, which presumably reflects the proceduralization–automatization stage.

Individual differences in memory predict changes in breakdown and repair fluency but not speed fluency: A short-term fluency training intervention study

“…However, four of the five ATI patterns were driven by the association between aptitude and breakdown fluency changes that were primarily observed in the blocked group. The unique role of aptitude in blocked practice is consistent with the findings yielded by previous research on L2 grammar learning (Suzuki et al, 2020). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that Suzuki et al (2020) examined grammar learning by distinguishing similar relative clause constructions pertaining to the oral picture description.…”

“…Because the effects of interleaved practice on fluency development are not influenced by individuals' aptitudes at least examined in the study, interleaved practice may be suitable for L2 learners with lower aptitudes. In other words, interleaved practice may neutralize the levels of aptitudes (Suzuki et al, 2020). In contrast, learners with higher aptitudes (PSTM and associative memory) may take advantage of their strengths and benefit from engaging in blocked task repetition practice most.…”

“…1-day interval) (Suzuki, 2019;Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017a). The most relevant study to the current investigation was reported by Suzuki, Yokosawa, and Aline (2020), who examined the role of working memory capacity in the context of blocked and interleaved practice aimed at L2 grammar acquisition. In their study, English L2 learners, all of whom were recruited from a Japanese university, performed a simple oral picture description task that specifically elicited a relative clause construction.…”

“…While Suzuki et al (2020) revealed that the effects of blocked practice were contingent on individuals' cognitive ability, the authors mainly focused on the acquisition of one aspect of grammar knowledge (i.e. relative clause construction) gained through narrowly focused grammar practice.…”

Optimizing Fluency Training for Speaking Skills Transfer: Comparing the Effects of Blocked and Interleaved Task Repetition

“…Accumulated evidence has suggested that the interleaving effect extends to L2 grammar learning (Nakata & Suzuki, 2019b; Pan, Tajran, Lovelett, Osuna, & Rickard, 2019; Suzuki & Sunada, 2019; Suzuki, Yokosawa, & Aline, 2020). The advantage of interleaved practice was found in the acquisition of the English tense–aspect–mood distinction (Nakata & Suzuki, 2019b) and Spanish past‐tense morphology (Pan, Lovelett, Phun, & Rickard, 2019), as well as in English subject/object relative clause constructions (Suzuki & Sunada, 2019; Suzuki et al., 2020). For instance, in Nakata and Suzuki's (2019b) study, EFL learners were introduced to five structures from the English tense–aspect–mood system: simple past, present perfect, first conditional, second conditional, and third conditional.…”