Profile

Several previous factor-analytic studies on the construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests (GJTs) concluded that untimed GJTs measure explicit knowledge (EK) and timed GJTs measure implicit knowledge (IK) (Bowles, 2011; R. Ellis, 2005; R. Ellis & Loewen, 2007). It has also been shown that, irrespective of the time condition chosen, GJTs’ grammatical sentences tap into IK, whereas their ungrammatical ones invoke EK (Gutiérrez, 2013). The current study examined these conclusions by employing two more fine-grained measures of IK: that is, a self-paced reading task and a word-monitoring task. The results of a confirmatory factor analysis revealed that manipulating GJTs’ time conditions and/or the grammaticality of the sentences does not render them distinct measures of EK and IK. The current work shows that GJTs are too coarse to be measures of IK, and that the different types of GJTs measure different levels of EK.

Recent research has called for the use of fine-grained measures that distinguish implicit knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge. In the current study, such measures were used to determine how the two systems interact in a naturalistic second language (L2) acquisition context. One hundred advanced L2 speakers of Japanese living in Japan were assessed using tests of automatized explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge, along with tests of phonological short-term memory and aptitude tests for explicit and implicit learning. Structural equation modeling demonstrated that aptitude for explicit learning significantly predicted acquisition of automatized explicit knowledge, and automatized explicit knowledge significantly predicted acquisition of implicit knowledge. The effects of implicit learning aptitude and phonological short-term memory on acquisition of automatized explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge were limited. These findings provide the first empirical evidence that automatized explicit knowledge, which develops through explicit learning mechanisms, may impact the acquisition of implicit knowledge.

This study examined optimal learning schedules for second language (L2) acquisition of a morphological structure. Sixty participants studied the simple and complex morphological rules of a novel miniature language system so as to use them for oral production. They engaged in four training sessions in either shorter spaced (3.3-day interval) or longer spaced (7-day interval) learning conditions. From the beginning of the third training session, the 3.3-day interval group started to provide more accurate target rules than the 7-day interval group. This superior performance by the 3.3-day interval group was maintained on both 7- and 28-day delayed posttests with small to medium effect sizes. No significant difference was found between the two groups for utterance speed, nor did linguistic complexity exert an influence on the effectiveness of different distributions of learning conditions.

This introduction to the special issue provides an overview of the role of practice in a second language (L2) from both pedagogical and theoretical perspectives. The following 5 areas of research are identified for studying L2 practice from cognitive psychology perspectives: (a) the type of practice (retrieval practice, corrective feedback, modality), (b) distribution of practice, (c) schedule of practice (blocking and interleaving effects), (d) individual difference factors (aptitude–treatment interaction), and (e) effects of practice on learning trajectories and outcomes. This special issue sets a research agenda toward better understanding the learning processes and resulting knowledge through practice. That research can inform teachers about how they can optimize L2 teaching and learning for a variety of learners across different classroom contexts.

In an exploration of the effects of task-repetition practice on fluency development, English-as-a-foreign language learners performed three oral narrative tasks involving six-frame cartoons for 3 consecutive days. They engaged in task-repetition practice under either a blocked (Day 1: A-A-A; Day 2: B-B-B; Day 3: C-C-C) or an interleaved (Day 1: A-B-C; Day 2: A-B-C; Day 3: A-B-C) task repetition schedule. The results yielded by a posttest involving new six-frame cartoons indicated that blocked practice resulted in greater fluency development (faster articulation rate and shorter mid-clause pause duration) than did interleaved practice. Moreover, the learners in the blocked-practice group tended to pause more frequently at clause boundaries. Blocked practice also led to significantly longer mean length of run and higher phonation/time ratio during training, although this advantage failed to transfer to meaningful pretest–posttest changes. These dynamic fluency developmental patterns are discussed to elucidate the underlying proceduralization in L2 speech processes.

While task repetition is effective for improving oral fluency, some teachers are reluctant to use it in their classrooms due to the alleged negative perceptions of learners toward repetitive practice. To address this concern, the participants in the current study completed a posttask questionnaire probing their perceptions toward task repetition practice, focusing on metacognitive judgment (i.e., the number of task repetitions considered effective) and emotional engagement (i.e., enjoyment and concentration). Prior to taking the survey, 64 second language learners individually performed the same picture-description task six times under one of the three repetition schedules (massed, short-spaced, and long-spaced condition). Their posttask questionnaire results indicated that task repetition was perceived as an effective and engaging activity (about four to five performances were deemed to be most optimal). Relative to massed task repetition, short- and long-spaced schedules led to higher perceived effectiveness and emotional engagement. Moreover, while the short-spaced group made accurate metacognitive judgment of their fluency gains, learners in the massed practice condition overestimated their fluency gains, possibly due to enjoyment and illusion of high competence. These findings indicate that spacing between task repetitions can influence learners’ engagement in the task, which can impact their fluency development.