Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 14 - The Role of Language Aptitude and Timing of Form-Focused Instruction in TBLT

  • from Part IV - Aptitude–Treatment Interaction (ATI)
  • Edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, Peter Skehan, Institute of Education, University of London, Richard L. Sparks, Mount St Joseph University
  • Book:
    Language Aptitude Theory and Practice
    Published online:
    27 May 2023
    Print publication:
    27 April 2023, pp 357-380

  • Summary

    Aptitude–treatment interaction research seeks to determine whether learners extract more benefit from a specific type of instruction in accordance with their language aptitude. Against this backdrop, the present quasi-experimental study addressed the moderating role of language aptitude whilst considering the timing of form-focused instruction within a task cycle and learners’ levels of proficiency. Eight intact groups (N = 159) of French L2 university-level students (4 B1- and 4 B2-level groups) completed a ranking task and a decision task during their regular class time. Results from multiple regression analyses showed that: (a) language analytic ability, measured by LLAMA F, significantly predicted variance for the lower-level proficiency learners who received explicit instruction before or during the tasks; (b) implicit/procedural learning, measured by LLAMA D, significantly predicted variance for the higher-level proficiency learners who received explicit instruction during the task; and (c) no significant interactions were observed for the post-task and the control group.