Document Type

Article

Language

eng

Format of Original

29 p.

Publication Date

2013

Publisher

University of Central Lancashire

Source Publication

Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research

Source ISSN

2045-4031

Abstract

The present investigation compares the acquisition of L2 Spanish discourse markers under explicit and implicit learning conditions. Subjects were fifth-semester Spanish students assigned to an explicit instruction combined with input flood group, an input flood alone group, or a control group. The explicit instruction with input flood group was provided with explicit information about discourse markers. The group then received a flood of written input containing the target forms. Learners were also provided with communicative practice and feedback. The input flood group did not receive explicit instruction on discourse markers. The group received the same flood of input as the other experimental group. The input flood group was presented with communicative practice although there was no feedback. Prior to instruction, a questionnaire was administered to assess learners’ previous knowledge and use of Spanish discourse markers. A speaking task was administered as a pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest. Their results indicated that both experimental treatments had a positive impact on learners’ overall use of discourse markers. No significant differences were found between the two groups on the posttests. Quantitative and qualitative data, however, revealed that the explicit instruction combined with input flood group was more effective than the input flood group in employing new discourse markers to structure their narratives. Taken together, these results confirm the positive impact of instruction on the use of L2 Spanish discourse markers.

Comments

Published version. Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2013): 3-31. Publisher Link. © University of Central Lancashire 2013. This article was previously published in the Journal of Second Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 3-31, and is republished here with permission of the Editors and the University of Central Lancashire, UK.

Share

COinS