How Does Instruction Affect Second Language Acquisition: Annotated Bibliography

Bataineh, R. F., Al-Qeyam, F. R., & Smadi, O. M. (2017). Does form-focused instruction really make a difference? Potential effectiveness in Jordanian EFL learners’ linguistic and pragmatic knowledge acquisition. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(1), 1-11.        The author evaluates the probable effectiveness of form-focused instruction while developing the pragmatic and linguistic knowledge of Jordanian English learners. The authors conducted a study involving 47 participating students, where 27 students received form-focused instruction and the others were in the control group. The experimental group received form-focused instruction on grammatical structure and speech acts. The results suggested that form-focused instruction impacted students’ pragmatic and linguistic knowledge positively, especially pragmatic knowledge. The source is relevant to the current study on the impact of instruction on second language acquisition since it discusses form-focused instruction on the Jordanian English learners’ SLA.

Culman, H., Henry, N., & VanPatten, B. (2009). The role of explicit information in instructed SLA: an online study with processing instruction and German accusative case inflections. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 42(1), 19-31.  

The study researched the impact of explicit information on German learners during instructed second language acquisition. The study involved 59 students whose first language was English and were taking German classes at Texas Tech University. The researchers used the case system with German during the study and concluded that explicit information may not be crucial in processing instruction, but it is clearly beneficial for students. The study complements the current research by providing a methodological evaluation of the impact of explicit information in instructed second language acquisition. Additionally, the study uses German learners which increases the data available on various languages to use in the current study.

Ng, L. L., & Ishak, S. N. A. (2018). Instructor’s Direct and Indirect Feedback: How do they Impact Learners’ Written Performance?. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 24(3).  

The researchers conducted the study to evaluate the elements that contributed to the accurate use of past tenses after direct or indirect written corrective feedback (WCF). The authors used interviews with 12 students and found that the attitudes of the learners towards the provided feedback, their beliefs on what the WCF entailed, and the types of scaffolding were the elements that determined the success of WCF in the use of past tenses by ELLs. The study connects to the current research by evaluating the impact of WCF instructional methods on second language acquisition.

Sunara, S. (2018). Effects of explicit instruction and corrective feedback on the acquisition of the French accentual phrase by native speakers of English (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada).  

The author evaluated the impact of explicit instruction and corrective feedback on second language acquisition. The study applied an experimental approach and used English-speaking French learners who were trying to attain the French Accentual Phrase (AP). The study found that there was no significant improvement in the students’ AP accuracy, but the students improved significantly in their ability to produce appropriately sized APs. This study complements the current research by discussing the impact of explicit instruction and corrective feedback in French AP acquisition. The study also contributes to the current study by diversifying the languages evaluated in SLA studies.

Wang, J. (2014). The effect of implicit vs. Explicit instruction on learning form-based vs. Meaning-based language features (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).      

The author evaluates if implicit meaning-based instruction is more beneficial to meaning-based features and if explicit rule-based instruction is more beneficial for form-based language features. The study used 34 Chinese language learners at the University of Pittsburgh and used random assignments for the experimental groups. The results suggested that meaning-based implicit instruction has more benefits for meaning-based language features, while rule-based explicit instruction has more benefits for form-based language features. The study complements the current research by explicitly evaluating the impact of both explicit and implicit instruction in SLA.

References

Bataineh, R. F., Al-Qeyam, F. R., & Smadi, O. M. (2017). Does form-focused instruction really make a difference? Potential effectiveness in Jordanian EFL learners’ linguistic and pragmatic knowledge acquisition. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(1), 1-11.

Culman, H., Henry, N., & VanPatten, B. (2009). The role of explicit information in instructed SLA: an online study with processing instruction and German accusative case inflections. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 42(1), 19-31.

Ng, L. L., & Ishak, S. N. A. (2018). Instructor’s Direct and Indirect Feedback: How do they Impact Learners’ Written Performance?. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 24(3).

Perez, L. (2014). How output affects explicit and implicit knowledge of Spanish indirect object pronouns. Temple University.

Rabab’ah, G. (2016). The effect of communication strategy training on the development of EFL learners’ strategic competence and oral communicative ability. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 45(3), 625-651.

Sunara, S. (2018). Effects of explicit instruction and corrective feedback on the acquisition of the French accentual phrase by native speakers of English (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada)).

Wang, J. (2014). The effect of implicit vs. Explicit instruction on learning form-based vs. Meaning-based language features (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).