An important issue in second-language acquisition concerns the role of explicit information (EI) and how it is affected by individual differences. The present study explored this question through a partial replication and extension of Fernández (2008: Experiment 2), which investigated the effects of EI in processing instruction (PI) for the Spanish present subjunctive. This replication compared training with EI (PI) to training without it (structured input; SI). In addition to methodological changes that balance the amount of exposure between groups, this study also includes a control group that received exposure to the target form (C+). Extending the original study, we also assessed the durability of training and whether its effects interact with individual differences in working memory (WM). Results indicate advantages for the PI group during training, supporting Fernández’s conclusions. Immediate post-tests show advantages for the PI group that are not sustained on delayed post-tests. Analyses also indicate benefits for higher WM but only for the PI and C+ groups, although this was only sustained for the C+ group. Thus, findings indicate that when paired with SI, EI and high WM may influence the initial learning of the Spanish subjunctive, but their influence may dissipate over time.

The present study assessed the comprehension of Spanish object relative (OR) clauses by 6- and 7-year-old children before and after a brief training session targeting the structural differences between ORs and subject relatives. In addition, we investigated the potential relationships between OR comprehension on the one hand and vocabulary size and non-verbal intelligence quotient (IQ) on the other. Comprehension of ORs was very poor at the pre-test but improved considerably after training. Further improvement was observed between the immediate post-test and a delayed post-test, suggesting that the knowledge acquired during training had been integrated into the children’s developing linguistic systems. Non-verbal IQ and vocabulary were not found to predict comprehension accuracy. We take these results to suggest that children’s difficulties with ORs are better explained by their experience with this construction than by maturational factors and that explicit contrast and feedback can bolster grammatical development in L1 acquisition.

This article documents a teaching journey in a 6/7 class with 20 Torres Strait Islander students in the curriculum area of literacy, over the course of one academic year. Specifically, this action research study explores a classroom teacher's efforts to navigate and respond to the prominent teaching model of explicit instruction and culturally responsive teaching, both of which inform policy statements in Far North Queensland. Using a reflective journal, teacher observations, informal student dialogue sessions, yarning circles and student work samples, the first author (D'Aietti) endeavoured to adjust her teaching practice to determine how best to meet her learners' needs. Through on-going critical reflection, engagement with two critical friends and in consultation with a cultural mentorship group, her teaching underwent transformation. One of the key findings of this study was that students want to learn, and for this to occur, teachers must independently navigate the curriculum documents, and in doing so, the explicit instruction model must be re-aligned, re-adjusted and re-positioned to suit Torres Strait Islander student needs.

This study examined the extent to which explicit instruction about first language (L1) and second language (L2) processing routines improved the accuracy, speed, and automaticity of learners’ responses during sentence interpretation practice. Fifty-three English-speaking learners of L2 French were assigned to one of the following treatments: (a) a “core” treatment consisting of L2 explicit information (EI) with L2 interpretation practice (L2-only group); (b) the same L2 core+L1 practice with L1 EI (L2+L1 group); or (c) the same L2 core+L1 practice but without L1 EI (L2+L1prac group). Findings indicated that increasing amounts of practice led to more accurate and faster performance only for learners who received L1 EI (L2+L1 group). Coefficient of variation analyses (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993) indicated knowledge restructuring early on that appeared to lead to gradual automatization over time (Solovyeva & DeKeyser, 2017; Suzuki, 2017). Our findings that EI and practice about L1 processing routines benefited the accuracy, speed, and automaticity of L2 performance have major implications for theories of L2 learning, the role of L1 EI in L2 grammar learning, and L2 pedagogy.