Depth of Processing, learner aptitude, and the acquisition of L2 English grammatical structures

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the aipentium editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为大语言模型、生成式AI、ChatGPT相关技术、计算机视觉、深度学习等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Depth of Processing (DoP) is central to several models of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) (Leow, 2015). While DoP has been extensively examined in vocabulary learning (e.g., Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), its role in the acquisition of grammatical structures, particularly through oral and audio-visual modalities remains comparatively underexplored. Drawing on the Levels of Processing framework (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), this study investigated whether task-induced processing depth influences the acquisition of third conditionals and comparatives, and whether language aptitude (LLAMA B, D, F) predicts learning gains. Using a pretest–posttest design, four intact classes involving 108 Grade 8 EFL learners in India were assigned to one of the three experimental conditions differing in level and type of processing: Low DoP, High DoP Explicit, and High DoP Implicit. The treatment task required the participants to listen to an audio-visual story containing the target structures (third conditionals and comparatives) and complete analytic tasks (varying in different groups) before listening to the story for a second time. The oral performance of the participants was analysed for accuracy, and frequency of use of the target structures. A grammaticality judgement test (GJT) and an elicited imitation task (EIT) were used to assess the participants’ gains in the knowledge of the target structures. In addition, language aptitude (LLAMA B, D, F) was measured and modelled as a predictor of gain scores. Results showed a significant effect of processing condition on GJT performance with the High DoP Implicit group outperforming the High DoP Explicit group on total scores and comparatives. In contrast, ANCOVA analyses indicated no significant group differences on EIT outcomes once pretest performance was controlled, with pretest scores strongly predicting posttest performance. In oral production, processing effects were structure-specific: the Low DoP group showed greater accuracy gains for comparatives, while both High DoP groups revealed increased frequency of use of third conditionals. However, across all four measures, multiple regression analyses indicated that LLAMA B, D, and F did not significantly predict gain scores. Overall, the findings support a processing-by-structure pattern: deeper processing benefits were most evident for the more salient structure (comparatives) on an explicit, written measure, whereas complex, low-salience forms (third conditionals) showed limited accuracy change but increased frequency of use under deeper processing.

Links and sources

Comments