The current study compared the effectiveness of computer-delivered task-essential practice coupled with feedback consisting of (1) negative evidence with metalinguistic information (NE+MI) or (2) negative evidence without metalinguistic information (NE–MI) in promoting absolute beginners’ (n = 58) initial learning of aspects of Latin morphosyntax. This study measured language development on a variety of dependent measures (three comprehension-based tests and one production test), assessing both changes in accuracy and reaction time as well as examining effects on trained (old) vs. untrained (new) items. Although participants under both conditions improved in accuracy and reaction time on all measures, on immediate post-tests, participants receiving metalinguistic information outperformed those who did not. However, this advantage had largely dissipated by the time of the delayed tests. Performance on untrained items also suggests an advantage for metalinguistic feedback on system learning and on transfer of skills from comprehension-based practice to production. Furthermore, we argue, based on findings in cognitive neuroscience, that greater maintenance of gains in accuracy as well as evidence of some faster processing by participants not exposed to metalinguistic information may reflect qualitatively different learning processes at work: more explicit learning in the [NE+MI] group and more implicit learning in the [NE–MI] group (Li, 2010).
Ari-Even RothD.Kishon-RabinL.HildesheimerM.KarniA. (2005). A latent consolidation phase in auditory identification learning: Time in the awake state is sufficient. Learning and Memory, 12, 159–164.
2.
BatesE.MacWhinneyB. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In MacWhinneyB.BatesE. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–13). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BowlesM. (2005). Effects of verbalization condition and the type of feedback on L2 development in a CALL task. Unpublished dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
4.
CamblorM.T. (2006). Type of written feedback, awareness, and L2 development: A computer-based study. Unpublished dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
5.
CarrollS.SwainM. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.
6.
DeKeyserR. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In DoughtyC.LongM. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–347). Oxford: Blackwell.
7.
EllisN. (1993). Rule and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–318.
8.
EllisN. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
9.
EllisR. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. SSLA, 27, 141–172.
10.
HerronC. (1991). The garden path correction strategy in the foreign language classroom. The French Review, 64, 966–977.
11.
HsiehH. (2007). Input-based practice, feedback, awareness and L2 development through a computerized task. Unpublished dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
12.
IwashitaN. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.
13.
JiangN. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.
14.
KeckC.M.Iberri-SheaG.Tracy-VenturaN.Wa-MbalekaS. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15.
LeeJ.VanPattenB. (2003). Making communicative language happen. New York: McGraw Hill.
16.
LeemanJ. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.
17.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
18.
LoschkyL.Bley-VromanR. (1993). Grammar and task-based learning. In CrookesG.GassS. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
19.
MackeyA. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
20.
MackeyA.AbbuhlR. (2005). Input and interaction. In SanzC. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 207–233). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
21.
MackeyA.GooJ. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
MackeyA.PhilpJ. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
23.
MackeyA.GassS.McDonoughK. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
24.
MacWhinneyB. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
McDonoughK.MackeyA. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.
26.
MorenoN. (2007). The effects of type of task and type of feedback on L2 development in CALL. Unpublished dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
27.
Morgan-ShortK.SanzC.SteinhauerK.UllmanM.T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60, 154–193.
28.
NagataN. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 330–339.
29.
NagataN.SwisherM.V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 337–347.
30.
Newell, (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and qualitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
32.
RosaE.LeowR.P. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 192–217.
33.
RussellJ.SpadaN. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–157). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
34.
SachsR.SuhB. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 199–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
SagarraN. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: the effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
SanzC. (2004). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
SanzC.LadoB. (2008). Technology and the study of awareness. In CenozJ.HornbergerN.H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Volume 6: Knowledge about language (2nd ed.) (pp. 299–312). Philadelphia, PA: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
38.
SanzC.Morgan-ShortK. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.
39.
SanzC.Morgan-ShortK. (2005). Explicitness in pedagogical interventions: Input, practice, and feedback. In SanzC. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 234–263). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
40.
SanzC.LinH.-J.LadoB.BowdenH.W.StaffordC.A. (2009). Concurrent verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: Two CALL studies. Language Learning, 59, 33–71.
41.
SegalowitzN. (2003). Automaticity and second language acquisition. In DoughtyC.LongM. (Eds), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
42.
SpadaN.TomitaY. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
43.
StaffordC.A.SanzC.BowdenH. (2012). Optimizing language instruction: Matters of explicitness, practice, and cue learning. Language Learning, 62, 741–768.
44.
VanPattenB. (2005). Processing instruction. In SanzC. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 267–281). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
