Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Effects of three types of practice after explicit explanation
|dc.contributor.advisor||Brown, James D.|
|dc.description.abstract||50 university students of beginning Japanese randomly assigned to one of four groups received different types of grammar instruction on specific lexical and sociolinguistic rules: explicit explanation (EE) only, EE plus mechanical output practice (MOP), EE plus structure-based communicative output practice (SOP), and EE plus structure-based communicative input practice (SIP). Results from sentence-level production and interpretation tests (a pretest, immediate, and delayed posttests) suggest that: (a) SIP plus EE is more effective than EE in improving both immediate and delayed performance on interpretation, and (b) MOP plus EE is more effective than EE in improving immediate, but not delayed, performance on interpretation. No other comparison proved statistically significant. This article suggests that, as for the ways learners process input, the conversion from input to intake may not require SIP, but the accommodation of intake into the learners’ long-term memory seems to help it.|
|dc.relation.ispartof||University of Hawai'I Second Langauge Studies Paper 19(1)|
|dc.title||Effects of three types of practice after explicit explanation|
|dc.type||Second Language Studies Paper|
|dc.contributor.department||University of Hawaii at Manoa. Department of Second Language Studies.|
|Appears in Collections:||
SLS Papers (2000-present)|
Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you need this content in ADA-compliant format.
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.