Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:23:05.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRIANGULATING MEASURES OF AWARENESS

A Contribution to the Debate on Learning without Awareness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

Patrick Rebuschat ,
Phillip Hamrick ,
Kate Riestenberg ,
Rebecca Sachs  and
Nicole Ziegler
Patrick Rebuschat*
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Phillip Hamrick
Affiliation:
Kent State University
Kate Riestenberg
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Rebecca Sachs
Affiliation:
Virginia International University
Nicole Ziegler
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
*
*Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Patrick Rebuschat, Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YL. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Williams’s (2005) study on “learning without awareness” and three subsequent extensions (Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2011; Hama & Leow, 2010; Rebuschat, Hamrick, Sachs, Riestenberg, & Ziegler, 2013) have reported conflicting results, perhaps in part due to differences in how awareness has been measured. The present extension of Williams (2005) addresses this possibility directly by triangulating data from three awareness measures: concurrent verbal reports (think-aloud protocols), retrospective verbal reports (postexposure interviews), and subjective measures (confidence ratings and source attributions). Participants were exposed to an artificial determiner system under incidental learning conditions. One experimental group thought aloud during training, another thought aloud during training and testing, and a third remained silent, as did a trained control group. All participants were then tested by means of a forced-choice task to establish whether learning took place. In addition, all participants provided confidence ratings and source attributions on test items and were interviewed following the test. Our results indicate that, although all experimental groups displayed learning effects, only the silent group was able to generalize the acquired knowledge to novel instances. Comparisons of concurrent and retrospective verbal report data shed light on the conflicting findings previously reported in the literature and highlight important methodological issues in implicit and explicit learning research.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 37 , Special Issue 2: New Directions in the Study of Implicit and Explicit Learning , June 2015 , pp. 299 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bowles, M. A. (2010). Concurrent verbal reports in second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedrus SuperLab Pro (Version 4.0.7b) [Computer software]. San Pedro, CA: Cedrus Corporation.Google Scholar
Cleeremans, A. (2008). Consciousness: The radical plasticity thesis. Progress in Brain Research, 168, 19–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dabrowska, E. (2014). Implicit lexical knowledge. Linguistics, 52, 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienes, Z., Altmann, G., Kwan, L., & Goode, A. (1995). Unconscious knowledge of artificial grammars is applied strategically. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1322–1338.Google Scholar
Dienes, Z., & Scott, R. (2005). Measuring unconscious knowledge: distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychological Research, 69, 338–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2011). Learning without awareness reconsidered: A replication of Williams (2005). In Granena, G., Koeth, J., Lee-Ellis, S., Lukyanchenko, A., Prieto Botana, G., & Rhoades, E. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2010 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 18–28). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 483–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A., & Schmidtke, J. (2013). What do eye movements tell us about awareness? A triangulation of eye-movement data, verbal reports and vocabulary learning scores. In Bergsleithner, J. M., Frota, S. N., & Yoshioka, J. K. (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 183–205). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Grey, S. E., Williams, J. N., & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Incidental exposure and L3 learning of morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hama, M., & Leow, R. P. (2010). Learning without awareness revisited: Extending Williams (2005). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2013). Development of conscious knowledge during early incidental learning of L2 syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2014a). Recognition memory for novel syntactic structures. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 2–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamrick, P. (2014b). A role for chunk formation in statistical learning of second language syntax. Language Learning, 64, 247–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamrick, P., & Rebuschat, P. (2012). How implicit is statistical learning? In Rebuschat, P. & Williams, J. N. (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 365–382). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P., & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Frequency effects, learning conditions, and the development of implicit and explicit lexical knowledge. In Connor-Linton, J. & Amoroso, L. (Eds.), Measured language: Quantitative approaches to acquisition, assessment, processing and variation (pp. 125–139). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1998). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Bowles, M. (2005). Attention and awareness in SLA. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 179–203). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Hama, M. (2013). Implicit learning in SLA and the issue of internal validity: A response to Leung and Williams (2011). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., Grey, S., Marijuan, S., & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, J. H. C., & Williams, J. N. (2011). The implicit learning of mappings between forms and contextually-derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, J. H. C., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Constraints on implicit learning of grammatical form-meaning connections. Language Learning, 62, 634–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, J. H. C., & Williams, J. N. (2014). Crosslinguistic differences in implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 733–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perruchet, P. (2008). Implicit learning. In Byrne, J. (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference: Vol. 2. Cognitive psychology of memory (pp. 597–621). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reber, R., & Perruchet, P. (2003). The use of control groups in artificial grammar learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2008). Implicit learning of natural language syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63, 595–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P., Hamrick, P., Sachs, R., Riestenberg, K., & Ziegler, N. (2013). Implicit and explicit knowledge of form-meaning connections: Evidence from subjective measures of awareness. In Bergsleithner, J., Frota, S., & Yoshioka, J. K. (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 249–269). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. (2006). Dissociating implicit and explicit learning of syntactic rules. In Sun, R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 2594). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, E. M., & Merikle, P. M. (1990). On the inter-relatedness of theory and measurement in the study of unconscious processes. Mind & Language, 5, 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrmeier, M., Rebuschat, P., & Cross, I. (2011). Incidental and online learning of melodic structure. Consciousness & Cognition, 24, 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagarelli, K., Borges Mota, M., & Rebuschat, P. (2011). The role of working memory in implicit and explicit language learning. In Carlson, L., Hölscher, C., & Shipley, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2061–2066). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Borges Mota, M., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Working memory, learning context, and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In Zhisheng, W., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 224–247). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bingley, UK: Emerald Press.Google Scholar