Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar (Second Language Learning and Teaching) 3030848787, 9783030848781

Citation preview

Second Language Learning and Teaching

Mirosław Pawlak

Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar

Second Language Learning and Teaching Series Editor Mirosław Pawlak, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland

The series brings together volumes dealing with different aspects of learning and teaching second and foreign languages. The titles included are both monographs and edited collections focusing on a variety of topics ranging from the processes underlying second language acquisition, through various aspects of language learning in instructed and non-instructed settings, to different facets of the teaching process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and evaluation. The publications reflect state-of-the-art developments in those areas, they adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and follow diverse research paradigms. The intended audience are all those who are interested in naturalistic and classroom second language acquisition, including researchers, methodologists, curriculum and materials designers, teachers and undergraduate and graduate students undertaking empirical investigations of how second languages are learnt and taught.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10129

Mirosław Pawlak

Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar

Mirosław Pawlak Department of English Studies Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts Adam Mickiewicz University Kalisz, Poland

ISSN 2193-7648 ISSN 2193-7656 (electronic) Second Language Learning and Teaching ISBN 978-3-030-84878-1 ISBN 978-3-030-84879-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge (automatized) of second or foreign language (L2) grammar, often also respectively referred to as declarative and procedural knowledge, is of vital importance to SLA theory and research but also has far-reaching consequences for target language (TL) grammar instruction as well as the outcomes of such pedagogic intervention (cf. DeKesyer, 1998, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2017; Ellis, 2004, 2005, 2006a, 2009a, 2009b; Pawlak, 2019a). It is thus not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted which have aimed to shed light on how the two types of L2 representation are affected by different instructional options and how their development proceeds in different learning conditions (see Loewen, 2020; Larsen-Freeman, 2010; Nassaji, 2017; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Pawlak, 2014, 2020a, for overviews). Although abundant empirical evidence has been produced as a result, this line of inquiry has to a large extent ignored variables which can mediate the efficacy of various learning and teaching processes and can also directly or indirectly impact the development of L2 knowledge, both explicit and implicit. This comment applies in particular to a wide array of individual difference (ID) factors which, whether separately or in combination, have been consistently shown to affect different aspects of L2 learning and to be related to ultimate TL attainment (cf. Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Griffiths & Soruç, 2020; Pawlak, 2017a, 2017b; 2020b). The research project reported in this volume sought to partly fill this gap by examining the mediating effects of selected ID factors on the mastery of different aspects of the English passive voice in the case of Polish university students majoring in English. The ID factors included beliefs about grammar instruction (BGI), grammar learning strategies (GLS), working memory (WM), motivation, and willingness to communicate (WTC). Grammar attainment in terms of the use of the targeted structure was determined by means of four tests tapping into the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge. It should be emphasized at this juncture that in the latter case it was in fact highly automatized knowledge that was measured (DeKesyer, 2017). In other words, the terms explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge are not understood here in the strict psychological sense of the presence or absence of awareness but, rather, in a less rigorous sense highlighting the distinction between controlled and communicative use of TL grammar features (cf. Ellis, 2005). v

vi

Preface

The book consists of five chapters. Chapter One focuses on the nature of the knowledge of L2 grammar, shedding light on its different dimensions, zooms in on the key distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge as well as approaches to their measurement, and addresses concerns related to tapping TL grammar attainment in studies seeking to offer insights into the mediating role of ID factors. Chapter Two shifts the focus to the mediating role of ID factors in learning and teaching L2 grammar as well as the mastery of this subsystem in relation to explicit and implicit knowledge. Moreover, a brief overview of the ID factors included in the research project is provided with a focus on conceptual issues and pertinent empirical evidence. Chapter Three and Chapter Four are concerned with the methodology and findings of the research project which in fact comprised five distinct studies dealing with the IDs under investigation. Finally, Chapter Five, which constitutes a conclusion to the entire volume, offers a more general discussion of the findings, highlights the limitations of the research project, considers possible pedagogical recommendations, and charts the potential foci of future research into the links between individual variation and the mastery of L2 grammar. Kalisz, Poland

Mirosław Pawlak

Acknowledgements The author would like to express his gratitude to Prof. Joanna Zawodniak (University of Zielona Góra, Poland) and Dr. Mariusz Kruk (University of Zielona Góra, Poland) for their feedback on the manuscript. Their invaluable comments and suggestions have without doubt greatly enhanced the quality of this work. The study reported in this book represents a contribution to the research project no. 2015/17/B/HS2/01704 (2016–2019) funded by the National Science Centre, Poland.

Contents

1 Knowledge of L2 Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Dimensions of Grammar Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Explicit and Implicit Knowledge of L2 Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Measurement of Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Assessing TL Grammar Attainment in Empirical Studies . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge of L2 Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Overview of Mediating Influences on the Knowledge of L2 Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Grammar Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Working Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Willingness to Communicate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Methodology of the Research Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Aims of the Research Project and Specific Research Questions . . . . 3.3 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Targeted Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Data Collection Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Measures of the Mastery of the Targeted Structure (All Studies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction (Study 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3 Grammar Learning Strategies (Study 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4 Working Memory (Studies 3 and 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.5 Motivation (Study 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.6 Willingness to Communicate (Study 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 4 8 13 14 17 17 18 20 24 28 31 35 37 39 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 49 52 54 vii

viii

Contents

3.6 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 57 58

4 Findings of the Research Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction (Study 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Grammar Learning Strategies (Study 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Working Memory (Studies 3 and 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Willingness to Communicate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 59 60 60 62 66 67 73 77 77 80 83 83 85 88 88 90 92

5 Conclusions, Implications and Directions for Future Research . . . . . .

93

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Appendix E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Appendix F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Chapter 1

Knowledge of L2 Grammar

1.1 Introduction In response to a request to comment on the essence of L2 grammar, the vast majority of individuals would in all likelihood simply start talking about the knowledge of rules, the ability to explain them and the capacity to use them correctly, presumably in controlled exercises (e.g., putting the verbs in brackets in the right form or paraphrasing) or on different kinds of tests. However, what is disconcerting is that such explanations often come not only from learners at different ages and educational levels, but also from university students majoring in English who should be cognizant of the nature of the TL and its use, including the role that the grammatical system plays in this respect (e.g., Pawlak, 2011a, 2013a). Even more disquieting is the fact that such a view of grammar is also frequently embraced by in-service teachers, which might determine the manner in which grammar forms are introduced and subsequently practiced, mostly in a controlled way with few opportunities for their use in spontaneous interaction (e.g., Pawlak, 2020a). However, the situation is far more complex and thus such convictions are unfounded for several key reasons. First, as has long been shown in the literature, the knowledge of TL grammar is multi-faceted, not only because of the long-standing traditional distinction between syntax and morphology but also, even more importantly, the existence of interfaces between grammar and lexis (Larsen-Freeman & DeCarrico, 2020). Second, as superbly demonstrated by Larsen-Freeman (2003), the mastery of any structure should be viewed in terms of three intersecting dimensions, that is, its form, meaning and use. In other words, it is not only rules about how a TL feature is constructed that are important but also semantic and pragmatic considerations, reflecting the meanings that the feature conveys in specific situations and the particular circumstances in which it is employed. Third, even when these dimensions are acknowledged, yet another issue is the crucial distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge, which refers to the fundamental difference between merely knowing the rules and being able to apply them like math formulas, and actually using relevant structures in © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8_1

1

2

1 Knowledge of L2 Grammar

spontaneous interaction to attain the envisaged communicative goals (cf. Ellis, 2009a; Pawlak, 2019a; see also Pawlak, 2021a). The present chapter aims to address such misconceptions but shedding light on the true nature of the mastery of L2 grammar. First, the dimensions of grammatical knowledge will be elaborated upon and, second, the crucial distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge will be described in some detail. Subsequently, issues involved in the measurement of these two types of representation will be tackled and problems concerning the measurement of grammar attainment will be considered. Along the way, references will be made to pertinent empirical investigations which have focused on the nature of explicit and implicit knowledge as well as optimal ways of tapping into them.

1.2 Dimensions of Grammar Knowledge Larsen-Freeman (2010) stresses the fact that the term grammar is fraught with ambiguity because it has been often used to mean different things to different people, such as an internal mental system, a list of prescriptions and proscriptions on how grammar features should be used in a given language, the description of how this subsystem is employed by proficient language users, particular linguistic theories, reference books providing explanation of how grammar rules work, or compilations of such rules for instructional and assessment purposes, to name but a few. She then goes on to define the concept of grammar as “(…) a system of meaningful structures and patterns that are governed by particular pragmatic constraints” (pp. 521–522). These structures and patterns include grammatical morphemes, function words, phrases, clauses, clausal formulas or patterned sequences, as well as discourse-level and typological patterns. Such an exhaustive description highlights among other things the intimate relationship between grammar and vocabulary, but also makes it clear that, contrary to popular belief, grammar can also operate and have consequences beyond the level of a sentence. It also emphasizes the different dimensions of the knowledge of L2 grammar that need to be mastered so that grammar structures can be employed to successfully convey our messages in communication. As already indicated above, according to Larsen-Freeman (2003), grammar comprises three distinct, but related components, that is, form, meaning and use. Form is connected with how a given grammar structure is created, as can be illustrated by the fact that the English passive voice, which is incidentally the focus of the research project reported in this book, takes the verbs be or get, which are adjusted to different tenses and aspects, as well as past participles of action verbs. When it comes to meaning, it encompasses the semantic dimension and allows us to convey exactly the kind of message that we wish to get across. Once again, when we take the passive as a point of reference, we want to emphasize the fact that a particular action has been taken with respect to a person or thing rather than talk about the performer of this activity, even though the word by can surely be employed to indicate this. Finally, the use dimension pertains to the circumstances in which a given structure is applied and the purpose for which this happens. In the case of the passive, the most

1.2 Dimensions of Grammar Knowledge

3

typical reason is the desire to deemphasize or conceal the subject but the use of this structure could also be preferred to invoke an aura of objectivity. Larsen-Freeman (2003) explains that the three dimensions are closely related and a change in one of them might have consequences for the remaining two. To adhere to the example of the passive voice, if we opt to use it with the progressive tense (e.g., this old tree is being cut down as we speak), we focus on an action that is being performed as we speak while the emphasis could be on the fact that this is likely to be completed soon, no matter by whom, and that the tree will no longer put passers-by in jeopardy. By highlighting the multi-dimensional nature of grammar, Larsen-Freeman (2003) agrees with Batstone (1994) that this subsystem should be viewed not only as a static product but also as a dynamic process, a powerful tool that offers us a range of choices and alternatives, thus allowing us to make our meanings more precise and better position ourselves in the world. As she comments, “Language users must constantly be scanning the environment, observing their interlocutors and interpreting what they are hearing/seeing, in order to make decisions about how to respond in accurate, meaningful and appropriate ways, and then carry out their decisions ‘online’” (2002, p. 26). This view somewhat inevitably entails regarding grammar as a skill, which is referred to as grammaring, a process involving accurate, meaningful and appropriate use of grammar features mentioned above. While Larsen-Freeman (2003) argues that the three dimensions are learned differently and that is why they should also be taught differently, with the current learning challenge being carefully identified, it is obvious that the difficulty posed by the three facets will be a function of the properties of a particular L2 grammar structure. In this connection, it makes sense to briefly reflect on what the complexity of a TL feature hinges upon. In fact, SLA specialists have related such learning challenge to a host of factors, such as transformational criteria, reflecting the scope of manipulation needed for morphological and syntactic rules (e.g., Hulstijn & de Graaff, 1994; Spada & Tomita, 2010), salience, or the visibility of the feature in the input (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001), communicative value (e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 2008), the influence of the L1 (e.g., White, 1991), or the focus on one of the three dimensions proposed by Larsen-Freeman (2003), that is, form, meaning as well as use (cf. DeKeyser, 2005; Pawlak, 2014). Obviously, the learning challenge is also tightly connected to whether a grammar structure is being learned or taught in terms of explicit or implicit knowledge and it is this key distinction that will be the focus of the following section.

4

1 Knowledge of L2 Grammar

1.3 Explicit and Implicit Knowledge of L2 Grammar1 There is a general consensus that the processes of first language (L1) acquisition and second language learning occur in evidently disparate ways and lead to the development of different types of linguistic knowledge. The former usually proceeds implicitly and unintentionally, without conscious attention to the elements of the L1 system, at least until children have reached school age, when a more explicit focus on how the mother tongue operates gradually appears. With the exception of some extremely rare circumstances, this process leads to the ability to successfully communicate in the mother tongue. By contrast, unless we deal with children brought up in the TL environment, L2 development is a much more explicit and deliberate process. In the vast majority of cases, this results in the awareness and mastery of grammar rules which, however, frequently cannot be successfully accessed in spontaneous interaction, a manifestation of what Larsen-Freeman (2003), following Whitehead (1929), described as the inert knowledge problem. In fact, the outcomes of learning an additional language, be it L2, L3, L4 and so on, are bound to vary tremendously with respect to overall attainment. This attainment can be operationalized, for example, as scores on standardized tests, the type of linguistic knowledge developed in terms of TL resources representing different subsystems, as well as the ability to fall back on this knowledge to aid the employment of different TL skills, typically in an integrated manner. For this reason, SLA research has tried to pursue two major goals from its inception: (1) defining and describing L2 knowledge that is developed by learners, and (2) shedding light on how the development of this knowledge transpires by obtaining insights into learner-internal (e.g., ID factors) and learner-external (e.g., the nature of learning context or instructional options used) variables (Ellis, 2005, 2008). Indeed, such issues are of immediate relevance to SLA specialists, both those that are primarily involved in theory building, those who channel their energies into designing valid and reliable measures of various facets of L2 knowledge, as well as such who seek to gauge the relative effects of different treatments they use in experimental or quasi-experimental studies or appraise of the role of different conditions in which L2 learning takes place. Moreover, from a purely practical standpoint, cognizance of the nature of TL knowledge is also of crucial significance to L2 teachers. This is because if L2 education is to be successful, practitioners simply need to know the difference between correct use of rules on tests and their accurate, meaningful and appropriate employment in spontaneous communication, even if they may not, or perhaps should not, be concerned with specialist terminology. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the character and measurement of L2 knowledge have garnered much attention from SLA researchers, in particular in 1

It should be explained that Sects. 2.3 and 2.4 draw considerably on an earlier publication by the present author (Pawlak, 2019a), dealing with very similar issues.

1.3 Explicit and Implicit Knowledge of L2 Grammar

5

relation to the distinction between explicit and implicit representation which is the main focus of this section (cf. Pawlak, 2019a). It is possible to distinguish two clearly extreme theoretical approaches to the nature of L2 knowledge. The first, which represents the nativist position (Chomsky, 1976; Gregg, 2003), focuses on the contribution of genetic endowment, a perspective that is highly controversial given the disagreements concerning continuity of access to Universal Grammar (e.g., White, 2003). The second stance is related to usage-based approaches and in particular connectionism (e.g., Ellis, 2005; Ellis & Wulff, 2015), primarily stipulating that L2 knowledge comprises an elaborate network of neural connections in the brain, with the strength of such connections hinging upon the frequency of their activation rather than some predetermined genetic blueprint. While these differences are fundamental, the proponents of these two approaches agree that L2 competence is constituted by subconscious, implicit knowledge which serves as a basis for L2 use in different situations in real-time processing. Where they differ is the contribution of explicit knowledge, with the nativists by and large questioning its value or viewing it as marginal and the connectionists arguing that awareness of how the TL functions may be facilitative or perhaps even indispensable by, for example, increasing the salience of TL features that might fail to be noticed otherwise (Larsen-Freeman, 2015; MacWhinney, 2001). In light of its vital importance, it is understandable that the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge features prominently in most theories of second language acquisition, although different labels may be used to refer to them (e.g., Bialystok, 1978; DeKesyer, 1998, 2003, 2010, 2017; Krashen, 1981). Before elaborating on the characteristics of explicit and implicit knowledge, it should in the first place be emphasized that both of them constitute products of SLA, whether this takes place in instructed or uninstructed settings. As such they should be carefully differentiated from the processes that underpin their development (i.e., explicit and implicit learning or instruction) as well as actual use of the TL in different situations, whether they enable reliance on consciously held rules or necessitate interaction in real time (Pawlak, 2014, 2019a). Since such issues are beyond the focus of this work, however, no attempt will be made to explain them further. Going back to the two types of L2 representation of crucial interest to the research project reported later in the present book, explicit knowledge can be described as conscious, declarative, unrestricted by processing constraints (see Pienemann & Lenzing, 2015) or learners’ age, as well as easily verbalizable, although no specialized terminology needs to be employed for this purpose. At the same time, its use involves considerable planning difficulty, it can only be accessed in controlled processing when ample time is available, and it is often imprecise and inaccurate. In contrast, implicit knowledge is tacit and intuitive, it is procedural in nature, variable but systematic, it can be accessed automatically in real-time, thus providing a basis for fluent performance in communicative interaction under time pressure. However, its development is subject to processing constraints and age limitations, and it cannot be verbalized (Ellis, 2004, 2006b, 2009a, 2009b). It is also noteworthy that insights from neurolinguistic

6

1 Knowledge of L2 Grammar

research suggest that the two types of representation are located in different areas of the human brain. More specifically, explicit (declarative) knowledge is stored in the hippocampus and the temporal cortex, whereas implicit (procedural) knowledge is associated with the basal ganglia and the frontal cortex (see e.g., Paradis, 2009; Ullman, 2015). DeKeyser (2010) explains the difference between explicit and implicit L2 knowledge in the following way: “Explicit knowledge is knowledge that one is aware of, that one has conscious access to. As a result, it can be verbalized, at least in principle; not everybody has the cognitive and linguistic wherewithal to articulate this knowledge clearly and completely. Implicit knowledge is outside awareness, and therefore cannot be verbalized, only inferred indirectly from behavior (…)” (p. 121). He also makes the important point that it would be an oversimplification to equate explicit and implicit knowledge with declarative and procedural knowledge, respectively. One reason for this, for example, is that declarative knowledge does not in all circumstances have to be explicit, as is the case with the concept of linguistic competence as conceptualized by Chomsky (1976). At the same time, procedural knowledge is not necessarily always implicit since reliance on rules may be necessary when it is only partly automatized and, besides, even very advanced L2 learners who benefit from the provision of explicit rules from the outset are very unlikely to forget them even if they can use them effortlessly in spontaneous communication. An even more controversial issue is whether foreign language learners with little everyday exposure to the TL and opportunities for its communicative use can be expected to develop implicit knowledge. This applies especially to individuals who have passed the critical period and are likely to mainly resort to general processing mechanisms to confront the challenges of L2 learning (DeKeyser, 2010; DeKeyser & Juffs, 2005). As DeKeyser (2017) rightly comments, “In most forms of second language instruction, even today, the learning of grammar starts as both declarative and explicit” (p. 16). As already pointed above, such awareness of relevant rules or patterns will not miraculously vanish as if with a wave of a magic wand and in particular less proficient learners are bound to cling to it at all cost as it will allow them to create utterances and try to accomplish their communicative goals in diverse situations. In the face of such realities, DeKeyser (2017) argues that it is better in such cases to opt for the term highly automatized explicit knowledge which is “(…) unintentional, uncontrollable, unconscious, efficient, and fast” (p. 17), thus allowing L2 performance that is fluent and largely accurate even under time pressure. This said, it should be borne in mind that while automatized explicit knowledge may be functionally indistinguishable from implicit knowledge, the two types of representation are distinct constructs since the former entails attention to TL form while the latter does not (cf. Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015, 2017). As will be reiterated below, the tests of implicit knowledge used in the research project in fact mainly tapped into highly automatized knowledge. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, the term implicit knowledge is preferred throughout this book, although it will sometimes be replaced with the term highly automatized knowledge or both terms will be used side by side.

1.3 Explicit and Implicit Knowledge of L2 Grammar

7

Although such issues are seldom given careful consideration in the SLA literature, a vital question also arises as to the difference between the productive and receptive aspects of explicit and implicit L2 knowledge. It stands to reason that there exists a considerable difference with respect to the processes by means of which explicit and implicit knowledge is used to generate grammar structures and those employed to understand relationships between the forms such structures take, and the meanings and functions they might carry. In general, the former process can be assumed to place much heavier demands on learners’ cognitive abilities than the latter, not least because it may primarily draw upon syntactic rather than semantic processing (cf. Swain, 2000). The situation appears to be particularly complex in the case of implicit or highly automatized L2 knowledge. This is because while production in this case might indeed be constrained by developmental readiness or availability of the requisite processing operations, this is much less likely in the case of reception, which can have a bearing on the quality of performance (cf. Pawlak, 2006, 2014). The need to shed more light on this issue was the main impetus behind investigating both productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive in the present book. As mentioned above, the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge can also be adopted as a point of reference when determining the complexity of a given grammar structure and the learning difficulty it represents. More precisely, Ellis (2006a) argues that the development of implicit knowledge is likely to depend on such factors as the frequency of a TL feature in the input, salience, or the extent to which it can be easily noticed and attended to, functional value, or the degree to which it is needed to convey or understand a message, regularity, which has to do with the existence of exceptions, as well as processability, which is related to developmental readiness (cf. Ellis, 2008) or availability of requisite processing operations (cf. Pienemann & Lenzing, 2015). As regards explicit knowledge, its development is contingent on the conceptual clarity of the targeted feature, which can be low, as is the case with such seemingly straightforward forms as English articles, or the need to fall back on metalanguage when explaining the principles of its use. As Spada and Tomita (2010) showed in their meta-analysis, these factors and those mentioned in the previous section are seldom included as predictor variables in studies exploring the mediating effects of TL features on L2 grammar, one notable exception being the empirical investigation by Yang and Lyster (2010). Yet another key issue that has generated heated debates pertains to the relationship between explicit and implicit L2 knowledge, the nature of which has major ramifications for L2 pedagogy. Three distinct possibilities can be found in the literature. According to the non-interface position (e.g., Hulstjin, 2002; Krashen, 1981), the two types of representation are entirely discrete, no transfer can happen between them and thus conscious knowledge of rules cannot underlie the application of these rules in real-time communicative interaction. The weak interface position, in turn, is predicated on the assumption that explicit knowledge can facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge when the learner has reached the required level of developmental

8

1 Knowledge of L2 Grammar

readiness (e.g., Ellis, 1997; Pienemann, 1989). Finally, the strong interface position (DeKeyser, 2007, 2010) posits that explicit or declarative knowledge can contribute to the development of implicit knowledge or, as mentioned above, it can be automatized to such a degree that it can be drawn upon in spontaneous communication. This automatization can only occur when the right kind of practice is provided, such that necessitates the use of the TL features under real operating conditions, which is needed for meaning and message conveyance. As a result, transfer-appropriate processing is ensured, whereby the conditions of learning are similar to conditions of use (Lightbown, 2008). DeKeyser (2017) strongly emphasizes that automatization does not entail a magical conversion of explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge but, rather, gradual growth of a parallel representation. As he illuminates, explicit knowledge “(…) allows learners to engage in target behavior (e.g., using a morphosyntactic rule in communication) and by drawing on this declarative knowledge repeatedly to engage in this behavior repeatedly, forming procedural knowledge, establishing a habit after some repetition, and then gradually automatizing this habit, and perhaps eventually (for some structures in some people) implicit knowledge” (p. 19). This explanation makes a lot of sense from a pedagogical, practical perspective for the simple reason that embracing the non-interface position would require calling into question the instructional practices that have not only been employed for decades in most classrooms but have also proved effective for millions of learners who use the TL successfully on a daily basis. Adopting the weak-interface position, in turn, would be tantamount to assuming that teachers are in a position to both identify developmental readiness in hundreds of their learners and adjust their instruction accordingly, which is clearly an impracticable recommendation (cf. Pawlak, 2021b). In view of such considerations, the strong interface position appears to be the most compatible with the existing teaching realities, at least in most foreign language contexts, of course on condition that grammar instruction also includes copious opportunities for the use of TL features in interaction.

1.4 Measurement of Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge It was already signaled in the previous section that precise measurement of linguistic knowledge plays a crucial role in SLA research, whether such research is confined to investigating the state of these two types of representation at a particular point in time or also seeks to examine the contribution of the processes that lead to their development, that is, the efficacy of different instructional options as well as types of learning. After all, it might be the case that different corrective feedback (CF) options or different types of L2 practice might differentially contribute to explicit and implicit knowledge of a given TL feature, also with respect to its productive and receptive dimensions. The same could be said about different learning strategies that leaners employ as well as conditions that trigger reliance on such strategies. At least approximate measurement of the two types of knowledge should also be of concern

1.4 Measurement of Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge

9

to practitioners, although in this case they should simply be conceptualized in terms of the difference between the ability to use TL features in controlled practice and in relatively spontaneous communication, a key issue that is also touched upon later in this section. Even though it is possible to tap into TL grammar attainment in different ways (see Sect. 1.5), it is of vital significance to develop precise measures of explicit and implicit knowledge for research purposes, with the caveat that this may at the end of the day prove to be an impossible task. Perhaps the most important contribution to the measurement of linguistic knowledge to date was made by Ellis and his associates (e.g., Elder, 2009; Ellis, 2004, 2005, 2009b; Ellis et al., 2009; Erlam, 2009; Loewen, 2009). In this case, explicit and implicit knowledge were operationalized with reference to seven criteria, reflective of the definitional features of the two types of representation presented in Sect. 1.4, that is: (1) degree of awareness, (2) time available, (3) focus of attention, (4) systematicity, (5) certainty, (6) metalanguage, and (7) learnability. Accordingly, the tasks designed to tap into explicit knowledge should encourage learners to resort to relevant rules, eliminate time pressure, require a primary focus on form, allow answers that can be variable, generate responses whose correctness cannot be taken for granted, incorporate opportunities for reliance upon metalinguistic knowledge, and confer an advantage on learners who are at least partly familiar with the targeted structure, mainly as a result of prior instruction. When it comes to the measures of implicit knowledge, they should encourage learners to fall back upon intuition, involve timepressure, require a primary focus on meaning, result in the provision of more consistent answers, lead to responses about whose accuracy learners can in general feel more confident, obviate the need for metalinguistic knowledge, and favor learners who have had the benefit of L2 learning from childhood (Ellis, 2009b). On the basis of these criteria, a battery of tests was designed with the purpose of tapping into explicit and implicit L2 knowledge. In the case of the former, the following tasks were employed: (1)

(2)

an untimed grammaticality judgment test, which was delivered by means of a computer and required participants to decide whether a sentence was correct or not, state the degree of certainty with which they arrive at this decision on a scale from 0 to 100%, and report on whether their decision was based on “feel” or grammar rules; a metalinguistic knowledge test, which also took place without time pressure and required learners to choose a rule that could best be used to explain errors included in sentences, find examples of specific grammatical features in a text, and identify parts of a sentence for which names were supplied.

Implicit knowledge was tapped by means of three tests, all of which were timepressured, thereby making it exceedingly difficult for learners to resort to rules which they may have been familiar with and in this way minimizing some kind of contamination coming from explicit knowledge. The tasks were as follows: (1)

a timed grammaticality judgment test, which was computer-delivered and instructed test-takers to decide whether the sentences provided were correct

10

(2)

(3)

1 Knowledge of L2 Grammar

or incorrect; the time limit for each sentence was determined based on prior performance of native speakers and increased by 20%, ultimately ranging from 1.8 to 6.24 s per sentence; an oral elicited imitation test, where learners were provided orally with a set of grammatical as well as ungrammatical statements concerning beliefs; subsequently, they were requested to perform several operations: first, they had to decide whether they agreed or disagreed with the statements, a requirement that was intended to trigger a primary focus on meaning, and, second, they were asked to repeat the sentences in correct English, which shifted attention to TL form; the responses were audio-recorded and later analyzed; an oral narrative test, in which learners were requested to read a story containing a number of target structures twice and then retell the story; this represented to all intents and purposes a focused communication task (Ellis, 2003), similar to that used in the present research project.

The analysis of the data collected by means of the five measures demonstrated, among other things, that all the tests were reliable and that they loaded onto two factors, one representing explicit and the other implicit knowledge. In the words of Ellis (2009b), the study “(…) demonstrated that an elicited oral imitation test afforded a convincing measure of implicit knowledge, while the ungrammatical sentences in a UGJT [untimed grammaticality judgment test] provided a solid measure of explicit knowledge” (p. 63). These findings were subsequently corroborated in replication studies in other contexts (e.g., second vs. foreign), also providing evidence that learners’ performance on the tasks is impacted by the presence of prior instruction, task stimulus and time pressure (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2013; Zhang, 2015). Over the last decade or so a number of studies have been conducted with the purpose of providing additional insights into the measurement of explicit and implicit L2 knowledge but the discussion here will be confined to three such empirical investigations. Pawlak (2012a) set out to explore factors that may affect the use of learners’ implicit TL knowledge, that is, task type, proficiency and the linguistic feature. Participants were 72 Polish learners of English, both university-level students majoring in English and learners of English attending secondary school. The targeted structures were different variants of the passive for the former group and the distinction between the past simple and the past progressive for the latter. Participants in both groups were requested to perform two tasks. One was a measure of explicit knowledge and took the form of a timed grammaticality judgment test including 10 correct and 10 incorrect sentences. The other constituted a measure of implicit (highly automatized) knowledge, where English majors were asked to describe a location using prompts, while secondary school learners were requested to come up with a story on the basis of pictures; relevant vocabulary and examples were supplied as well. A combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis provided tentative evidence for the mediating effect of all the variables under investigation, with correlations between tasks being low and moderate. However, some concerns were raised as to whether the tasks of implicit knowledge in the two groups indeed tapped the same constructs. In another study, Suzuki and DeKesyer (2015) focused specifically on the validity of

1.4 Measurement of Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge

11

oral elicited imitation as a measure of implicit knowledge in the case of advanced Chinese speakers of L2 Japanese. More specifically, they investigated the extent to which online error detection and subsequent sentence repetition drew upon this type of representation. Three measures were employed: an oral elicited imitation task with a word monitoring component, a metalinguistic knowledge test, and a serial reaction test which tapped into aptitude for implicit learning. Since scores on elicited imitation correlated to metalinguistic knowledge rather than reaction time and the situation was reversed for word monitoring for participants, the researchers concluded that oral elicited imitation is a measure of automatized knowledge rather than pure implicit knowledge. In a recent study, Maie and DeKesyer (2020) compared objective and subjective measures of explicit and implicit knowledge in learning from incidental exposure. Native speakers of English were trained in an artificial language and had their explicit and implicit knowledge tested twice with the help of two objective measures: a metalinguistic knowledge test and an untimed grammaticality judgment test with word monitoring, respectively. The objective measure involved the degree of self-reported awareness. The analysis demonstrated that the tasks differed in terms of their sensitivity, with the objective measure pointing to the predominant role of implicit knowledge and the subjective one providing evidence for differential contribution of both types of knowledge depending on targeted constructions. The main conclusion of the study was that the criterion of awareness may be insufficient to tap into implicit knowledge under incidental conditions. In light of the above considerations, even though the work done by Ellis and his colleagues can hardly be overestimated or its contribution to the field of SLA denied, there appear to be several problems afflicting the measures they devised. First, when constructing tasks intended to gauge explicit and implicit knowledge, it should be kept in mind that performance on such tasks is likely to hinge upon a number of mediating variables, related to the properties of the targeted feature (e.g., simple or complex), contextual factors (e.g., second vs. foreign), the stimuli and modalities used (e.g., prompts vs. pictures), reliance on objective or subjective measures, TL proficiency and, in all likelihood, a host of ID variables (see e.g., Gutiérrez, 2013; Maie & DeKesyer, 2020; Pawlak, 2014, 2017a, 2019a, 2021a; Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015, 2017; Zhang, 2015). Although such issues will be the focus of Chapter Two, it is warranted to assume, for example, that participants with greater working memory capacity will be at an advantage on tasks completed under time pressure. This is because of the likelihood that they will be able to fall back on explicit rules, which might at least to some extent compromise the validity of the tests described above. Second, while Ellis (2009b) sees oral elicited imitation as an excellent test of implicit knowledge, studies by Suzuki and DeKeyser (2015) as well as Maie and Suzuki suggest that this may not be the case and that the test is better suited to providing insights into highly automatized knowledge. In addition, the implementation of the procedure poses many challenges, participants’ performance is contingent on proficiency, with the effect that its results may be accidental, and it is surely not the kind of task that could ever be used in real classrooms where much of the research on the effectiveness of instructional options is conducted (Bielak & Pawlak, 2013;

12

1 Knowledge of L2 Grammar

Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2012). Third, while the efforts to carefully operationalize explicit and implicit knowledge are commendable, DeKeyser (2010) makes it plain that “it is virtually impossible to design ‘pure’ measures of implicit or explicit knowledge of L2” (p. 122). This is because performance on any test may be underpinned by different types of representation, a danger exposed in some of the studies described above. Fourth, and closely related to the previous point, it has been argued that “(…) time-pressure measures, such as elicited imitation or timed grammaticality judgment tests, are too coarse-grained to limit access to automatized explicit knowledge” (Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017, p. 751). Thus, attempts have been made to tap implicit knowledge with the help of real-time online comprehension tasks drawing on measurements of reaction time or eye-movement (e.g., Maie & DeKesyer, 2020; Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015, 2017). Fifth, however, while reliance on such highly sensitive measures may be important from a theoretical standpoint, it could reasonably be argued that they are of little relevance not only to classroom practice but also to studies seeking to determine the efficacy of various instructional options. This is because, if highly automatized explicit knowledge cannot be distinguished from purely implicit knowledge and attempts to tease the two apart are exceedingly problematic (DeKeyser, 2003), it is a futile effort to do this not only in classroom assessment but also in most empirical investigations. What really matters in such cases is the extent to which learners or study participants can use targeted TL structures fluently, accurately and appropriately in real-time processing, as is the case with everyday interaction. Given such reservations, it would seem that in most cases an adequate measure of highly automatized (implicit) knowledge is performance on focused communication tasks (Ellis, 2003), which require the employment of a specific TL feature but are designed in such a way as to ensure the occurrence of relatively spontaneous interaction (e.g., narrating a story using picture prompts). Clearly, such tasks are not easy to develop for some TL features, since learners can resort to avoidance (cf. Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993), triggering spontaneous message conveyance could pose a serious challenge, and there is the crucial question of how acquisition of the targeted feature should best be evaluated (e.g., a predetermined number of uses with a maximum score or, perhaps, obligatory context analysis of all occurrences of the feature). A decisive factor in the opinion of the present author is that such tasks should bear as much resemblance to real-time behaviors as possible, thus ensuring a high degree of ecological validity, a characteristic that oral elicited imitation tasks are so blatantly lacking. Adopting the same line of reasoning, there are also grounds to assume that explicit knowledge can be tapped through traditional grammar tests pitched at the right difficulty because, once again, they represent assessment measures with which learners are familiar. Additionally, in light of the scarcity of empirical evidence in this respect, it also makes sense to tap separately into the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the TL feature under investigation. It is these assumptions that were taken into account when designing the research project which is described in Chapters Three and Four of this volume.

1.5 Assessing TL Grammar Attainment in Empirical Studies

13

1.5 Assessing TL Grammar Attainment in Empirical Studies While the discussion in the previous section was largely theoretical, a few more observations are also in order on the more practical, down-to-earth issues that need to be addressed when tapping into TL grammar attainment in empirical investigations. Since SLA researchers might seek information of this kind for a variety of reasons which are dependent on the specific research questions posed, the focus here will be on studies seeking to relate the mastery of different aspects of L2 grammar to possibly moderating variables such as ID factors. There are several options that can be drawn upon to gauge grammar achievement in such cases. One possibility is to adopt as a point of reference scores on standardized tests (e.g., CAE, TEOFL) or some of the sections they include (e.g., reading and use of English, speaking or writing). Although such tests are typically characterized by high validity and reliability, they may not always provide the exact data that might be required (e.g., the use of a specific form) and are therefore more suitable in cases where we are interested in general indices of TL proficiency. Another, frequently the most convenient option is simply to rely on the outcomes of evaluation measures used in a particular institution or program, such as final grades in courses dedicated to grammar, or scores on end-of-the-year examinations in English or their parts, not only those related to use of English but also speaking and writing. While this approach is relatively straightforward and surely extremely practical, one possible problem is that the assessments provided by different teachers might often not be comparable, homegrown tests might not always be designed with sufficient rigor, and examinations scores might be “adjusted” in some cases to guarantee a pass grade. In addition, when the evaluation scale is limited to just several choices, such as specific grades, which is the solution adopted in the research project reported in this book, it may simply not be sensitive enough to discriminate well among participants. Some studies also take into account learners’ self-assessment, whatever form this may assume, such as a composite index of TL ability, both overall and with respect to a particular domain, or a combination of more specific indices (e.g., separate assessments for different skills and subsystems). Obviously, the main limitation of this option is that students’ objectivity cannot be taken for granted, their unintentional focus on a certain aspect of TL use (e.g., the evaluation of the mastery of the passive could be tinted by a recent failure on a test that focused on its use with past tense verbs), and, yet again, the potentially limited sensitivity of the assessment scale employed. In view of the above, by far the best option appears to be developing tailor-made tests that would tap into learners’ mastery of TL grammar. However, this option clearly poses several daunting challenges because such tests need to be carefully designed and piloted, complex logistics are involved in the case of large samples, it is difficult to find teachers who would be willing to help out with data collection, and numerous hurdles must be cleared to ensure comparable conditions of administration. In addition, the validity of such tests is by no means guaranteed if the

14

1 Knowledge of L2 Grammar

decision as to what structures to include and how to determine their mastery is not meticulously premeditated. First, especially at more advanced levels, it might be extremely difficult to decide on the choice of TL features that would reflect overall grammar attainment for the simple reason that there is bound to exist considerable variation among learners with respect to the structures they are comfortable using and the conditions in which they can successfully deploy them. Second, it might be advisable to focus on a specific grammar feature or a set of such features, the mastery of which will be easier to establish on the basis of participants’ individual profiles. Instructed SLA research has measured TL ability in different areas by means of a wide variety of tasks (Doughty, 2003; Larsen-Freeman, 2010). These tasks can involve production and/or comprehension and they can include items requiring constrained, constructed responses (e.g., correcting errors in sentences or recalling isolated sentences), metalinguistic judgment responses (i.e., grammaticality judgment tests), selected responses (e.g., matching pictures to sentences, choosing words to complete a sentence), as well as free responses (e.g., translating a story into the TL, picture description). While the last type is the only that goes beyond tapping explicit, declarative knowledge and allows insights into implicit or highly automatized knowledge, the bulk of SLA research, presumably for practical reasons, has shied away from relying on such measures, which has skewed the results in favor of more explicit instruction types (cf. Goo et al., 2015; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Norris & Ortega, 2000). This situation is very unfortunate because, as highlighted above, an optimal solution is to fall back not only on tests of explicit knowledge but also tasks that necessitate the use of grammar structures in communicative interaction, which can provide a window on implicit or highly automatized knowledge. What is more, as already mentioned, it would be best if both production and reception were taken into account. It should be reiterated once again that, in line with this reasoning, explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice was measured with respect to both their productive and receptive dimensions in the present research project.

1.6 Conclusion The aim of the present chapter was to disentangle some important issues related to the nature of L2 grammar knowledge. With this in mind, first, the dimensions of the mastery of L2 grammar features, as envisaged by Larsen-Freeman (2003), were discussed and then the focus of attention was shifted to the crucial distinction between explicit and implicit (highly automatized) knowledge as well as the manner in which these two types of representation can be tapped into. Some practical considerations involved in the measurement of TL grammar attainment in empirical investigations, especially such that seek to assess explicit and implicit knowledge in the classroom, were offered as well. The most important take-away from this chapter is that the mastery of TL grammar features should be gauged with respect to both explicit and

1.6 Conclusion

15

implicit or highly automatized knowledge, preferably in terms of both the productive and receptive facets of their use. This is the approach that was adopted in the study reported later in this volume.

Chapter 2

Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge of L2 Grammar

2.1 Introduction The focus of Chap. 1 was primarily on the nature of L2 grammar knowledge, in particular in terms of the crucial distinction between explicit and implicit (highly automatized) knowledge as well as issues involved in the measurement of different dimensions of such knowledge. The present chapter goes a step further by considering the role of individual difference factors in mediating the mastery of L2 grammar. Importantly, moderating effects of individual variation are bound to impact both the process of learning grammar and its outcomes, irrespective of whether L2 acquisition occurs in instructed or uninstructed settings. In other words, ID factors will not only mediate the effectiveness of instructional options that teachers may draw upon in the classroom, but also have a bearing on the efficacy of the ways in which individuals go about learning an L2 in their own time, as is evident in their impact on the employment of language learning strategies (cf. Cohen & Griffiths, 2015; Griffiths, 2018; Oxford, 2011; Pawlak, 2011a; Takeuchi et al., 2007). In light of such realities, it must come as a surprise that empirical investigations of the role of IDs in learning L2 grammar are few and far between, that they have focused on a narrow range of factors and that they have far too often examined variables that may be of little relevance to practitioners (Biedro´n & Pawlak, 2016; Pawlak, 2017a, 2017b, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b). The aim of this chapter is to provide a succinct overview of the IDs which are investigated as mediators of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice in the present study, that is, beliefs regarding grammar instruction, grammar learning strategies, working memory, motivation and willingness to communicate. First, mediating influences on L2 grammar knowledge will be considered more generally and this will be followed by the discussion of the ID factors under investigation, with a focus on their conceptualization as well as the findings of relevant studies.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8_2

17

18

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

2.2 Overview of Mediating Influences on the Knowledge of L2 Grammar As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, the development of the knowledge of grammar never occurs in a vacuum and is inevitably affected by multifarious factors. On the one hand, this applies to the process of this development, whether it happens in the classroom and is primarily the outcome of instructional techniques and procedures applied by the teacher, or it takes place outside school, either because individuals choose to study on their own, they have the benefit of naturalistic acquisition, or a combination of such conditions is in place. On the other hand, such mediating factors are also bound to impact the product of L2 learning in the form of explicit or implicit (highly automatized) knowledge, whether their productive or receptive facets are taken into account. The possible operation of these factors is illustrated in Fig. 2.1, which was proposed by Ellis (2010) in relation to the provision of CF, later modified by Pawlak (2014, 2017a) to reflect the entirety of grammar instruction, and modified again for the purposes of this chapter to show that the mastery of L2 grammar emerges in different conditions and can be operationalized in various ways. As illustrated in Fig. 2.1, the efficacy of L2 teaching and learning processes is mediated by a wide array of (psycho)linguistic, contextual and ID factors which also affect, both directly or indirectly, the outcomes of learning grammar in terms of explicit and implicit knowledge (productive and receptive). It should be emphasized at the outset that although the three sets of factors are portrayed separately and this is how they are characterized, in reality they may form distinct constellations that impact the process and product of TL learning in intricate ways. One way in which this happens is through affecting the intensity and quality of learner engagement (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020); another, equally pivotal, is simply determining which TL data can be noticed, attended to, and actually employed for L2 development. When it comes to (psycho)linguistic factors, they are related to the difficulty involved in learning a particular grammar feature, irrespective of how this difficulty is conceptualized (DeKeyser, 2005; Spada & Tomita, 2010). One way is to describe the challenge of learning a specific TL feature with respect to the development of its explicit and implicit knowledge. For example, understanding the rule for the English

Development of L2 grammar - instructed - uninstructed - both

(Psycho)linguisƟc factors Contextual factors

Learning outcomes Engagement

- explicit knowledge - implicit knowledge

ID factors

Fig. 2.1 Mediating factors in learning L2 grammar and its outcomes (adapted from Pawlak, 2017a)

2.2 Overview of Mediating Influences on the Knowledge of L2 Grammar

19

third-person is easy and it is also unproblematic to use in sentences when ample time is available to access this rule (explicit knowledge). However, it is exceedingly more difficult to apply it in communicative interaction as this requires access to requisite processing operations (cf. Pienemann & Lenzing, 2015; see also Ellis, 2006a). Moving on to contextual factors, they can be described in terms of three distinct levels: (1) the macro-context (e.g., a second or foreign language setting, study abroad), (2) the mezzo-context (e.g., learners’ age and educational level, syllabus type, dominant methodology, the type of L2 program such as content and language integrated learning), and (3) the micro-context (e.g., overall focus of a class such as general proficiency, speaking, writing or grammar, the presence of prior instruction, goals of the tasks being assigned). To give an example, an argument could be made that controlled exercises are more justified in class right after a given structure has been introduced to facilitate the development of explicit knowledge and the ability to employ it with little time pressure than in situations where the aim is to develop the ability to use those structures in communicative tasks with the aim of developing implicit knowledge or automatizing explicit knowledge. Even though (psycho)linguistic and contextual factors undoubtedly play a crucial role, there is every reason to believe on the basis of SLA research that their effect is in most cases trumped by ID variables. This is because such variables make learners prone to be more or less receptive to specific instructional techniques or learning strategies, they determine which part of input is processed and in what way, and, thus, they influence learning outcomes in terms of both explicit and implicit knowledge. Although a detailed overview of ID factors goes beyond the scope of this book and can be found in numerous publications (e.g., Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Griffiths & Soruç, 2020; Pawlak, 2017b), suffice it to say here that error correction may be more or less effective depending on a learner’s motivation, willingness to communicate, learning style or working memory capacity, whereas opportunities for TL interaction may never be fully capitalized on because of negative emotions, personality or preferred learning strategies. As Larsen-Freeman (2014) aptly comments, “(…) there are differences between students, too. In fact, the efficacy of certain practices may be determined by a host of factors (…)” (p. 271). While she uses the word practices, this observation applies to learning processes more generally. Unfortunately, research into the mediating role of ID variables in teaching and learning L2 grammar is still scarce, not to mention the fact that it is often confined to factors that may be of little relevance to practitioners (e.g., different aspects of working memory). Spada (2011, p. 232) evaluates the situation in the following way: “(…) while there has been extensive research on individual differences and SLA (…), and considerable research on the effects of instruction on SLA (…), there has been little research on the interaction between individual and instructional variables and their combined effects on learning.” Concerns of this kind are echoed by Pawlak (2017a), who argues that “(…) researchers have only begun to scratch the surface when it comes to the mediating role of ID factors in form-focused instruction, with the available empirical evidence being scarce, patchy and inconclusive” (p. 87). In turn, Biedro´n and Pawlak (2016) remark that “(…) irrespective of what the research

20

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

findings reveal, a question arises as to the extent to which teachers can capitalize on such insights with respect to intelligence, FL aptitude, WM or personality, for the simple reason that they lack the necessary expertise and tools to tap these IDs, their judgments are bound to be intuitive and thus often inaccurate, and these constructs as such may seem far removed from the realities of the classroom” (p. 413). All of this does not mean, of course, that research on the mediating effects of ID factors is non-existent since empirical investigations have provided some evidence in relation to age (e.g., Lyster & Saito, 2010), aptitude (Stefanou & Révész, 2015), working memory (e.g., Indrarathne & Kormos, 2018; Jackson, 2020), learning styles (e.g., Kim & Nassaji, 2018), language learning strategies (e.g., Pawlak & MystkowskaWiertelak, 2019), developmental readiness (e.g., Ammar, 2008), TL proficiency (e.g., Li, 2014), attitudes (e.g., Sheen, 2007), beliefs (e.g., Bao, 2019), anxiety (e.g., Sheen, 2008), investment (e.g., Tomita & Spada, 2013) and willingness to communicate (e.g., Tavakoli & Zarrinabadi, 2016). This said, the results of such studies are still fragmentary and inconclusive, often as a result of reliance on diverse data collection tools and methodologies, and the moderating role of many ID variables has yet to be uncovered. This is what the research project described in the remainder of this book attempts to do by focusing on the mediating contribution of BGI, GLS, WM, motivation and WTC. These ID factors are described in more detail in the following sections.

2.3 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction1 Although Dörnyei (2005) expresses doubts as to whether beliefs about different aspects of L2 teaching and learning constitute an ID variable in their own right for the reason that they are neither enduring nor stable, he also openly admits that “(…) the beliefs language learners hold considerably affect the way they go about mastering the L2” (p. 216). Such sentiments are evidently shared by numerous SLA researchers who have shown considerable interest in such perceptions which provide a basis for mini-theories of L2 learning (Hosenfeld, 1978) and shape how students choose to confront specific learning tasks. Horwitz (1985, 1988), for example, adopted the normative approach in which beliefs are seen as preconceived notions or misconceptions, developing the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI). This instrument, which focused on such general issues as the difficulty of language learning, foreign language aptitude, the nature of language learning, learning and communication strategies, as well as motivation and expectations, soon became extremely influential and has been employed in numerous studies. In the following years, the scope of research into beliefs was expanded and entirely new lines of inquiry opened up. Wenden (1999), for instance, related the construct to metacognition, claiming that although beliefs are more persistent, the two terms are interchangeable. Mori (1999) addressed the 1

This section draws to some extent on a previous publication by the present author (Pawlak, 2021c).

2.3 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction

21

connection between beliefs about L2 learning and epistemological beliefs (i.e., such concerning the nature of knowledge and learning), also using factor analysis to identify three main dimensions of the former: perceptions regarding the difficulty of L2 learning, the effectiveness of approaches to and strategies for L2 learning, and the sources of L2 knowledge. Kramsch (2003) offered a conceptualization of beliefs in terms of metaphors used to describe the process of L2 learning. Kalaja and Barcelos (2003) initiated a shift away from viewing beliefs as stable mental representations to emphasizing their dynamic, inconsistent nature that accounts for mismatches with the actions learners actually engage in. Barcelos and Kalaja (2011) described beliefs as fluctuating, complex, ideologically determined, intrinsically linked to such affective constructs as emotions and self-concept, oriented towards others, influenced by reflection, and intricately related to action. Dweck (2012) distinguished between explicit and implicit beliefs, referring to the latter as implicit theories and describing them in terms of growth and fixed mindsets. Specialists, such as Barcelos (2015) have also begun to emphasize the emotional dimension of beliefs, arguing that they cannot be reduced to mere rational interpretations (cf. Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). The evolution of views on the nature of learner beliefs has not changed the fact that they play an important role in L2 acquisition, impacting both its process and its outcomes, even if “they do so indirectly by influencing the kinds of learning strategies learners employ” (Ellis, 2008, p. 703). It is thus not surprising that numerous studies in SLA have looked into learners’ and teachers’ beliefs concerning a variety of aspects of L2 learning, such as, among others, the development of different skills and subsystems (e.g., pronunciation; Pawlak et al., 2015), content-based instruction (e.g., Briggs et al., 2018), classroom experiences (e.g., Nilsson, 2020), mother tongue use (e.g., Wach & Monroy, 2019), and also in more general terms (e.g., Al-Osaimi & Wedell, 2014). There are also empirical investigations that have looked into beliefs about grammar instruction (GI), understood as both different ways of introducing and practicing grammar structures, and provision of corrective feedback on errors involving their use. Quite surprisingly, however, the bulk of such studies have focused on teachers’ beliefs, also referred to as teacher cognitions (e.g., Borg & Burns, 2008; Kartchava et al., 2020; Sato & Oyanedel, 2019). In addition, even though there are quite a few studies that have addressed learners’ beliefs in these domains, they have often pursued various goals, used sometimes quite disparate populations, embraced contrasting interpretations of what grammar teaching involves (e.g., inclusive or exclusive of the provision of error correction, limited to selected aspects of formfocused instruction, such as separate and integrated), and collected data by means of a variety of instruments (e.g., different types of questionnaire items or interviews). What is the most relevant to the research project reported in this book, only a handful of investigations have addressed the connection between beliefs about GI and grammar attainment and, to the best knowledge of the present author, none of them has related beliefs to the use of a specific grammar feature, surely not with respect to explicit and implicit knowledge of this feature. With this in mind, the overview offered in this section is confined to the most pertinent studies, such that

22

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

have examined beliefs exhibited by learners, also in comparison with those manifested by teachers, as well as those that have made an attempt to link the nature of beliefs about GI with TL grammar achievement (cf. Pawlak, 2021c). It is fitting to start this synthesis with two early investigations that looked into learners’ beliefs about GI in terms of correction of grammar-related errors. They were undertaken by Griffiths and Chunhong (2008), who focused on university students majoring in English in China, and Pawlak (2010), who collected data from secondary school learners in Poland. Although the researchers set their sights on different dimensions of CF, the results overlapped to a large extent, indicating participants’ clear preference for frequent error correction, especially such that is direct and is provided by the teacher. With the help of an earlier version of the data collection instrument employed in the research project reported in Chaps. 3 and 4 of this book, Pawlak (2011a) explored the differences in beliefs about grammar teaching held by 106 Italian and 106 Polish university students majoring in English. While there were some differences between the two groups of participants regarding specific instructional options (e.g., the Polish students were more positively disposed towards induction), both samples appreciated the overall importance of grammar teaching as well as the provision of corrective feedback. Moreover, students in both countries favored a structural syllabus, the use of deduction to introduce new forms, the need to practice grammar structures in a variety of ways, also tasks requiring communicative interaction, as well as reliance on immediate CF on grammar errors, supplied by the teacher. Beliefs about the use of different variants of CF were also investigated by Kartchava and Ammar (2014), who set out to determine whether such beliefs were related to what was noticed and acquired in the classroom by 99 francophone learners of English. They found that two out of four common beliefs correlated with noticing on an immediate recall measure as well as performance on a picture description and spotthe-difference task, but no relationships to actual learning outcomes were uncovered. Graus and Coppen (2016) examined beliefs about GI held by 832 university-level learners of English in a teacher education program in Denmark. The analysis showed that the respondents manifested a preference for explicit inductive instruction, with the caveat that higher-level students were more likely to favor tasks which allowed integrating TL grammar features in communicative tasks. In a recent study, Ha et al. (2021) examined the beliefs of 250 Vietnamese high school students, also taking account of the mediating role of gender, motivation and extraversion. They identified six factors underlying beliefs (e.g., desire for CF, non-verbal cues, or important errors), and revealed interesting relationships between such beliefs and individual variation (e.g., females were more positive about CF than males). Worth mentioning are also two studies that were carried out with the purpose of constructing as well as validating research instruments that could be used to gather data on learners’ beliefs about grammar teaching and error correction, all the more so that they constituted one of the points of reference in developing the tool used in the present research project (see Sect. 3.5.2). In one of them, Loewen et al. (2009) not only constructed such a tool but also demonstrated that beliefs about GI differed as a function of whether English was being learned as a second or foreign language. Spada et al. (2009), in turn, developed a questionnaire tapping into learners’ preferences for isolated

2.3 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction

23

and integrated form-focused instruction (i.e., such in which pedagogic intervention precedes or follows a communicative activity vs. such that is an integral component of communicative task performance, respectively). Some researchers have also set out to compare beliefs about GI and CF held by learners and teachers in different contexts. In an often-cited study, Schulz (1996, 2001) investigated beliefs of this kind in the US and Colombian setting, providing evidence that learners were more in favor of explicit grammar instruction than L2 teachers, but also demonstrating that the observed differences could be a function of cultural factors. Using questionnaires and interviews to obtain insights into the beliefs concerning GI manifested by high school students and teachers in Taiwan, Liao and Wang (2008) found that while both groups were favorably disposed to teaching grammar, learners were more likely to opt for traditional CF options, such as immediate, direct and explicit correction. Jean and Simard (2011) compared perceptions of GI held by high school students learning L2 English and L2 French with those exhibited by their teachers. While slight discrepancies were shown to exist between both groups, the main finding was that the teaching of grammar was viewed as necessary, even if this activity was not perceived as highly enjoyable, with such beliefs remaining largely unaffected by the TL, age or gender. Pawlak (2013a) used the same instrument as in his former study (Pawlak, 2011a) to tap into beliefs about form-focused instruction of Polish university students majoring in English and those held by lecturers in English departments. He found that although participants in both groups strongly believed in the utility of grammar instruction, they differed with respect to its perceived contribution to the mastery of various TL skills as well as the value of specific instructional options (e.g., the deductive approach to introducing grammar and controlled types of practice were regarded more favorably by the students). Incongruences between the beliefs held by learners and teachers were also reported by Deng and Lin (2016) in the study that they carried out in the Chinese setting. Consistent with the insights yielded by Pawlak (2013a), they found on the basis of data collected through questionnaires and interviews that teachers were more aware of the need to use the grammar structures taught in communication and thus showed greater preference for tasks and activities allowing such a focus. Finally, Mansouri et al. (2019) looked into beliefs about isolated and integrated GI manifested by students and teachers in intensive English programs in colleges in Iran and the USA. The analysis of participants’ responses on questionnaires containing Likert-scale statements and open-ended queries showed similar trends to those seen in earlier studies. Again, teachers proved to be more enthusiastic about communicative tasks typical of integrated GI whereas learners were more in favor of controlled activities which are the hallmark of isolated GI. As already signaled above, empirical investigations seeking to link beliefs about different aspects of GI and the provision of CF in this respect with TL grammar attainment are few and far between. In one relevant study, Polat (2009) explored the degree to which observed matches and mismatches between Georgian teachers’ and learners’ beliefs concerning the role of grammar as well as the most preferable instructional techniques and procedures translated into achievement, both in relation to the mastery of this subsystem and overall TL ability. The analysis of the data

24

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

obtained by means of questionnaires, interviews, observations, evaluation inventories and coursebook analysis demonstrated that the vast majority of participants in both groups recognized the importance of grammar, pointing to the positive role of the knowledge of the grammar of their mother tongue and explicit teaching of L2 grammar. A clear preference for traditional ways of introducing and practicing grammar was also revealed. While matching beliefs were shown to benefit grades in grammar, the presence or absence of consistency did not have a bearing on overall L2 achievement. Given the blatant paucity of empirical evidence, there is a clear need to provide more insights into the mediating role that beliefs about GI play in shaping grammar attainment. This is the gap that one of the studies comprising the research project reported in Chaps. 3 and 4 (Study 1) sought to address by examining how such beliefs mediate the mastery of the English passive voice.

2.4 Grammar Learning Strategies When we trace the publications dealing with language learning strategies (LLS) that have appeared over the last several decades, it immediately becomes evident that major advances have been made in this area. This is because not only has abundant empirical evidence been accumulated regarding the ways in which LLS are applied, their effectiveness, variables affecting their use, or the extent to which such use is amenable to pedagogical intervention, but also because the field has been able to withstand severe criticisms and reinvent itself, quite successfully aligning itself with the concept of self-regulation as well as attempting to incorporate the tenets of complex dynamic systems theories (cf. Cohen, 2011; Cohen & Griffiths, 2015; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths, 2018; Oxford, 2011, 2017; Oxford & Amerstorfer, 2018; Pawlak, 2011b, 2019b; Pawlak & Oxford, 2018). This said, there are areas that for somewhat inexplicable reasons have remained blatantly neglected by researchers and such neglect is clearly evident in the case of strategies that learners fall back upon to learn and use L2 grammar. As Oxford (2017) candidly admits in her state-ofthe-art monograph, “grammar learning strategies have garnered the least interest and concern of any area of L2 learning strategies” (p. 246). Such a situation is surely both surprising and disconcerting because despite the emphasis recently laid in different parts of the world on task-based approaches (cf. Ellis, 2017a, 2018), the influence of these approaches still remains marginal (cf. Larsen-Freeman, 2014; Pawlak, 2020a) and grammar teaching is part and parcel of L2 instruction in most contexts. Given the scant amount of classroom time in most settings, if such teaching is ever expected to become more effective and in particular to result in accurate, appropriate and meaningful use of grammar structures in communication (Larsen-Freeman, 2003), learners also need to dedicate time to learning grammar outside of school and take advantage of all the available opportunities to use grammar features in more or less spontaneous interaction. Adept use of grammar learning strategies (GLS) can without doubt aid this process and also facilitate the growth of autonomy in this area (Pawlak, 2016). This is particularly important for English majors, such as participants of the

2.4 Grammar Learning Strategies

25

research project reported later, because they are expected to achieve superior levels of TL proficiency to be able to effectively function in different walks of life, as teachers, translators, interpreters, etc. Perhaps the first definition of GLS was proposed by Oxford et al. (2007), who, building upon her own, well-known definition of LLS (Oxford, 1990), characterized these strategic devices as “actions and thoughts that learners consciously employ to make language learning and/or language use easier, more effective, more efficient, and more enjoyable” (p. 120). A decade later, extrapolating from her recent, much more extensive and all-inclusive characterization of LLS, Oxford (2017) opted to describe GLS as “teachable, dynamic thoughts and behaviors that learners consciously select and employ in specific contexts to improve their self-regulated, autonomous L2 grammar development for effective task performance and long-term efficiency” (p. 244). Despite the undeniable merits of this definition such as the attempt to give justice to all key characteristics of these strategic behaviors, including their dynamicity, situatedness and links with autonomy and self-regulation, it seems to be trying to achieve too much at the same time, 25 which limits its applicability to quantitative studies, such as the research project reported in Chaps. 3 and 4. Since such empirical investigations are somewhat by default predicated on the assumption that GLS can provisionally be divided into relatively distinct categories and subcategories, the definition proposed by Cohen and Pinilla-Herrera (2010) is followed. It states that strategies of this kind refer to “deliberate thoughts and actions that students consciously [employ] for learning and getting better control over the use of grammar structures” (p. 64). Similar to other characterizations of LLS in general, it draws attention to such key features of strategies as element of choice, the fact that strategic devices can be both behavioral and mental, or the necessity of awareness at some level. However, the true value of this definition lies in the fact that it brings to the fore the fact that GLS use not only can help students understand and remember relevant rules but also contribute to the ability to use specific structures during spontaneous interactions (Pawlak, 2018). Put differently, skillful employment of grammar strategies can trigger the development of both explicit and implicit knowledge of grammar structures or at least aid the automatization of the former (cf. DeKeyser, 1998, 2017; Ellis, 2005, 2009a; see Chap. 1 for a more thorough discussion). Before moving on to the overview of the scant research into GLS, some comments are in order on the ways in which grammar strategies are classified and how their use is tapped in empirical investigations. Indeed, this is the main problem of studies in this area which have for the most part relied on general, slightly revised classifications of LLS (e.g., O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990) and used marginally changed versions of popular data collection tools, such as the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990). As Pawlak (2013c) commented, “although this approach is to some extent warranted (…), it is obvious that adopting as a point of reference a general categorization of LLS is not free from shortcomings as some of the techniques may be difficult to extrapolate to the learning of grammar structures while some strategic devices specifically employed for this purpose may simply be left out” (p. 198). To give an example, such statements as “I use flashcards to remember new words” or “I start conversations in English” are hardly connected

26

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

with learning or using grammar. Besides, the SILL was designed in the first place to reflect the entirety of processes involved in L2 learning and thus it cannot possibly do justice to the distinctiveness of learning this TL subsystem, such as the role of deduction and induction, controlled and communicative practice, or the provision of CF (cf. Pawlak, 2018). A notable attempt to come up with a separate taxonomy of L2 grammar strategies was made by Oxford et al. (2007), who based it upon four modes of instruction that emerged from research into form-focused instruction (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2002; Williams, 2005). They identified four distinct groups of GLS which facilitate: (1) implicit, entirely meaning-focused learning, (2) implicit learning with a focus on form (i.e., directing learners’ attention to grammar features in the course of communicative interaction; cf. e.g., Nassaji & Fotos, 2011), (3) explicit inductive learning (i.e., involving the discovery of rules), and (4) explicit deductive learning (i.e., based on the provision of rules). While certainly constituting a valuable contribution to the study of GLS, this descriptive scheme suffers from a number of problems such as failure to include learners’ point of view or inadequate focus on different forms of practice which constitute the mainstay of learning L2 grammar (Pawlak, 2012b, 2013c). Even more importantly, the proposed division was never intended to constitute a comprehensive taxonomy but, rather, was put forward as a way of generating interest in as well as discussion of strategies used for learning grammar. Building on this initial work as well as Cohen’s (2010) compromise, general classification of LLS, divisions of various options in grammar instruction (Ellis, 1997, Pawlak, 2006), as well as the available research into GLS, Pawlak (2013c) developed what remains to the best of the knowledge of the present author the only comprehensive classification of GLS. This classification provided a point of departure for the construction of a data collection instrument called the Grammar Learning Strategy Inventory (GLSI, cf. Pawlak, 2018). Since this classification is described in detail in Sect. 3.5.3 in Chap. 3 and the instrument is included in Appendix C, suffice it to say at this point that such strategies are divided into metacognitive, cognitive, affective and social. The cognitive group, which constitutes the core of the classification and includes strategic devices actually drawn on in learning and using grammar, is further subdivided into four subcategories: GLS used to help production and comprehension of grammar in communication, GLS used to help the development of explicit knowledge, GLS used to facilitate the development of implicit knowledge, and GLS used to deal with corrective feedback on errors in the use of grammar. As signaled above, research into GLS in L2 learning is still in its infancy. The first insights in this respect derive from studies of good language learners such as those conducted by Rubin (1975) or Stern (1975), who listed among the characteristics of such individuals willingness to pay attention to form, identify TL patterns, explicitly study linguistic system and engage in different forms of practice. The techniques that students fell back on to tackle learning grammar were also reported in research projects carried out in the 1980s and 1990s which had as their goal the description of overall profiles of L2 learners in terms of strategy use taking into account leading classification of strategic devices (e.g., Dro´zdział-Szelest, 1997; O’Malley

2.4 Grammar Learning Strategies

27

et al., 1985). As regards research that specifically singled out GLS as an object of investigation, some interesting insights came from studies which explored gender assignment in the mother tongue and additional languages, zooming in in particular on the cues that were used to guide this process (e.g., Cain et al., 1987, Stevens, 1984). Sadly, this insightful empirical evidence was never seriously considered by SLA researchers who elected to pursue their own avenues of research into GLS, such that were much more general. The bulk of such research focused on the identification and description of grammar strategies and adopted a macro-perspective by examining general patterns of such use in sizable samples. In one of the first studies, Sarıçoban (2005) looked into the use of GLS by 100 Turkish university-level students learning English as a foreign language and the extent to which it reflected the instruction they received. Using a questionnaire based on O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) classification, the researcher uncovered a clear predilection for cognitive strategies as well as infrequent reliance on metacognitive and socio-affective strategies. In the same context, Gürata (2008) investigated GLS use reported by 176 students learning English in a preparatory program with the help of an instrument drawing on a combination of LLS taxonomies proposed by Oxford (1990), and O’Malley and Chamot (1990). Once again, cognitive strategies proved to be the most popular, followed by metacognitive and socio-affective ones. In the Polish educational context, Pawlak (2008) explored the use of GLS by analyzing data from diaries that 29 English majors kept for the period of two months. Qualitative analysis yielded a very narrow range of strategic devices, most of which were cognitive in nature, emphasizing formal practice. Participants did little to employ grammar features in communication and a clear-cut correspondence was revealed between how the students approach learning grammar and how this subsystem was routinely taught in specifically designated classes. The same researcher also carried out two other, largely quantitative, studies in the Polish context. In the first, Pawlak (2012b) collected data from 142 English majors by means of a questionnaire designed on the basis of the descriptive scheme proposed by Oxford et al. (2007). He found that although participants reported most frequently drawing upon GLS related to the use of grammar in communication, qualitative analysis of open-ended responses showed that cognitive strategies based on formal practice held the pride of place. In the second study, Pawlak (2019c) also collected data from English majors, 106 participants in total, this time by means of the GLSI. It turned out that cognitive GLS were used the most frequently, followed by metacognitive and social strategies. Within the cognitive category, GLS employed for the production and comprehension of grammar in communicative interaction and those for dealing with corrective feedback were reported most often przecinek przed ‘while’ strategies for the development of explicit knowledge were employed less frequently. Worth mentioning is also the study by Wach (2016), who explored the use of L1-based strategies for learning grammar among 85 Polish university-level students learning English as a second and Russian as a third language (L3). Significant differences were revealed between L2 and L3, which were accounted for in terms of proficiency and psychotypology. Research into GLS adopting the micro-perspective by looking at situated GLS use is scant. Pawlak (2012d) examined the application of GLS by 42 Polish university

28

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

students in a communicative task requiring the use of English passive and reported frequent reliance on metacognitive and cognitive strategies, with those helping the use of grammar in interaction being the most favored. Comajoan (2019) explored grammar strategies deployed by 18 learners of L3 Catalan focusing on tense-aspect morphology employed in a narrative. Bottom-up analysis of think-aloud data showed most frequent reliance on translation, aspect, adverbial, and tense strategies. Particularly relevant from the perspective of the research project conducted for the purpose of this volume are studies that have looked into the link between GLS and grammar attainment. Investigations of this kind are extremely difficult to come by and their findings are inconclusive. Tilfarlio˘glu (2005), for instance, examined the relationship between GLS use and TL proficiency among Turkish universitylevel learners of English but failed to detect differences between successful and unsuccessful students. A more complex picture was painted by Pawlak (2009), who analyzed the data on GLS use collected by means of a tool based on Oxford et al. (2007) and correlated the results to the semester grades in a grammar class and scores on a final examination in English. Relationships among different types of GLS and attainment turned out to be weak, the only exception being GLS drawn upon to develop explicit deductive knowledge whose use was positively related to grammar course grades. Finally, in the study mentioned above, Pawlak (2019b) found significant, positive but yet again weak correlations between grammar course grades, metacognitive and social strategies, as well as cognitive GLS aiding the use of grammar in communication and the processing of CF. In light of the paucity of empirical evidence, it is clearly necessary to conduct research that would inform us whether the use of GLS can be an important predictor of attainment in terms of TL grammar and overall TL proficiency, not least because this would help us decide whether strategies-based instruction targeting GLS should be introduced and identify its foci. Study 2 reported later in this book was conducted with this goal in mind, seeking to determine whether different categories of grammar strategies included in the GLSI predicted the productive and receptive use of the English passive voice in terms of explicit and implicit knowledge, also taking into account final course grades and self-assessment.

2.5 Working Memory Emerging from research on foreign language aptitude, the concept of working memory is currently considered to be a distinct cognitive variable that determines the outcomes of L2 learning at different ages and for different proficiency levels (Biedro´n & Pawlak, 2016; DeKeyser & Koeth, 2011; Doughty, 2013; Wen, 2016, 2019; Wen & Li, 2019; Wen et al., 2016). WM constitutes a kind of a “mental workspace” (Lee et al., 2013, p. 73), which, in the words of Baddeley (2003) allows “temporary storage and manipulation of information that is assumed to be necessary for a wide range of complex cognitive activities” (p. 189). When we relate this definition to SLA, this cognitive ability enables L2 learners to notice, store, process and retain portions

2.5 Working Memory

29

of L2 input that can drive their acquisitional processes but also be used for output production, which facilitates the performance of a range of controlled or spontaneous learning tasks (e.g., translating parts of sentences from Polish into English, describing a scene in a park using the present progressive or deciding what an utterance in which an unreal conditional is used actually means). While there is no single explanation of how WM operates, the most influential and thus also the most researched model was put forward by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), and Baddeley (2000, 2007, 2012). In accordance with this model, WM comprises four components: (1) the central executive (CE), which constitutes a supervisory attention-limited component with no storage capacity of its own, and is, among others, responsible for alternating attentional focus between form and meaning, retrieval of information and actual task performance, as well as coordination between different subsystems (Juffs & Harrington, 2012), (2) the episodic buffer, which serves the purpose of integrating different types of information and acts as a bridge between short-term and long-term memory, (3) the phonological loop, which plays a key part in processing, storing and rehearsing verbal information, and (4) the visuo-spatial sketchpad, whose role is to deal with information concerning images, shapes or locations (cf. Li, 2017). The bulk of research in L2 learning has focused on the role of verbal components of WM, that is, the phonological short term memory (PSTM), related to the phonological loop, and the working memory capacity (WMC), tied to the central executive, both of which are the focus of the research project reported in Chaps. 3 and 4. Weak links overall have been reported between WM and L2 proficiency, with WMC being a better predictor of success than PSTM and verbal measures playing a more important role than non-verbal measures (cf. Li, 2019; Linck et al., 2014). A critical issue in investigating the role of working memory in SLA is the way in which it is measured. Zychowicz et al. (2018) make the crucial point that no single tool can capture the complexity of the construct and, based on the overview of the relevant literature consider a number of factors that need to be taken into account when tapping WM. These include the way in which tasks are implemented, with production being favored over reception (Gathercole, 2006; Wen, 2016), the choice of language in which tests are administered, with the mother tongue being preferred because TL proficiency can impact performance (Wen, 2012), contents of tests in terms of whether they are verbal, visual, spatial or otherwise, with the first being favored for exploring the link between WM and L2 learning (Wen, 2012), and task complexity, which depends on whether only the storage component (PSTM) or both the storage and processing components (WMC) are targeted (Linck et al., 2014). Elaborating on the last factor, in a simple task participants are instructed to remember a string of numbers or letters. Perhaps the most commonly used is digit span, which is part of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 1997). While it is a verbal task, it has been suggested that it can also tap into the visuospatial sketchpad because it is possible to visualize numbers being heard (Linck et al., 2014; Zychowicz et al., 2018). Complex tasks require participants to engage in the processing of semantic or syntactic information but also to recall an element of a specific item (cf. Li, 2017). For example, in the Reading Span Task developed by Daneman and Carpenter (1980), participants are asked to read series of sentences aloud while also remembering the

30

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

final word of each sentence in a series. The researchers also constructed a listening version of this task in which participants have to perform the same operations, this time in the aural modality, but, in order to ensure a dual focus on processing and remembering information, they also have to indicate if a given sentence is true or false. These two types of measurement led to the development of two separate streams of research, one focusing on PSTM and the other on WCM. The research project reported in this book seeks to reconcile these somewhat distinct lines of inquiry by investigating the mediating role of WM in the acquisition of the mastery of the passive by means of both simple and complex tasks. Since the tasks are described in detail in Sect. 3.5.4. of Chap. 3, suffice it to say that PSTM was tapped through digit span and the Polish Nonword Span (Zychowicz et al., 2018), whereas WCM was gauged by means of the Polish Reading Span (Biedro´n & Szczepaniak, 2012) and the Polish Listening Span (Zychowicz et al., 2017). It should be emphasized that the last three tools were specifically developed for the Polish context and involved samples similar to the one used in the present research project (i.e., English majors). This allowed meeting the requirement that WM tests should be constructed in participants’ first language (cf. Conway et al., 2008; Linck et al., 2014). What is particularly relevant from the perspective of this research project and in particular Studies 3 and 4 (see Chap. 3) is that different aspects of WM have been linked to specific aspects of SLA including L2 grammar. Even though some studies have failed to yield supporting empirical evidence in this respect (e.g., Antoniou et al., 2016), many others have demonstrated that they affect both explicit and implicit knowledge, with suggestions that WMC is especially relevant for the former and PSTM for the latter (cf. Révész, 2012). Moving on to specific investigations that have recently addressed this issue, in two experiments involving semiartificial microlanguages, Williams and Lovatt (2003) found a positive correlation between PSTM and the ability to generalize grammatical patterns, arguing that the process of rule learning was explicit. These results were corroborated in the study by French and O’Brien (2008), who reported a positive link between scores on a non-word span and performance of French learners of English on a written grammar test focusing on structures that had previously been explicitly taught. Also Verhagen et al. (2015) found that PSTM was related to production of grammar structures in a narrative task in the case of Turkish children learning Dutch in a naturalistic setting. In another study, Martin and Ellis (2012) investigated the role of PSTM, tapped with nonword repetition and recognition and WMC, operationalized as listening span, in learning vocabulary and grammar. While both measures were related to learning outcomes, it was suggested that the latter plays a greater role in the acquisition of TL grammar since this endeavor requires more processing capacities. Moving on to studies that specifically focused on the role of WM in the development of explicit and implicit knowledge of L2 grammar, Tagarelli et al. (2015) looked into the role of WMC in the acquisition of German syntax by 62 native speakers of English in incidental and intentional conditions. Using a grammaticality judgment test and non-verbal complex tasks, they demonstrated that the impact of this cognitive ability is multifaceted and manifests itself mainly in the cases of explicit learning. Suzuki and DeKeyser (2017) explored the relationship between PSTM,

2.5 Working Memory

31

tapped through letter span, explicit an implicit aptitude, and measures of automatized explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge in 100 learners acquiring this language naturalistically in Japan. While explicit aptitude had an effect on the learning of explicit and implicit knowledge, PSTM played no role whatsoever. Li et al. (2019) examined the impact of WMC in five treatment conditions, differing according to the presence of and type of instruction as well as its timing, in the case of the passive voice, the grammar feature targeted in this research project. WMC was gauged through operation span while explicit and implicit knowledge were tapped by means of an untimed grammaticality judgement test and elicited oral imitation. WMC proved to be related to both types of L2 representation only in conditions where participants benefitted from within-task feedback, but not pre-task or post-task CF, which implies that WM is implicated mainly in on-line processing. One possible explanation is that greater WMC allows more adept use of unanalyzed chunks in spontaneous production. On the whole, an interesting insight emanating from empirical evidence is that the effects of PSTM and WMC on explicit and implicit knowledge of grammar are mediated by a number of factors, such as TL proficiency, learning conditions, the nature of instruction, measures of L2 grammar or the cognitive demands imposed by the processing component of WM tests. Research findings are often mixed, as evident in the fact that, in contrast to French and O’Brien (2008), the studies undertaken by Grey et al. (2015), Sagarra (2017), as well as Serafini and Sanz (2016) suggest that WM is a predictor of L2 grammar attainment for lower, but not higher proficiency levels. While the results of the studies briefly overviewed above are insightful, it is also clear that they are to a large extent fragmentary because of, among others, the diverse ways in which PSTM and WMC were tapped, reliance on different measures of explicit and implicit knowledge, or a variety of contexts as well as learning and instructional conditions that were taken into account. Therefore, in line with the pleas made by Li et al. (2019) or Wen and Li (2019), there is a clear need for probing further into the role of PSTM and WMC in learning different aspects of L2, especially grammar. The research project presented in this book represents an earnest and timely response to heed such appeals because not only does it rely on two measures of each of these constructs but also uses four tests of the mastery of a specific TL feature (i.e., the English passive voice) tapping the productive and receptive dimensions of its explicit and implicit knowledge. In effect, the research project seeks to fill the gaps in the existing literature but also holds the promise of producing a much more nuanced picture of the relationships between different facets of WM and different dimensions of L2 grammar attainment.

2.6 Motivation As Csizér (2017) points out, “second language (L2) motivation research is one of the most vibrant fields of applied linguistics,” adding to this that its prevalence “(…) stems from the fact that motivation has long been seen as the key variable to successful

32

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

L2 learning” (p. 418). In the same vein, Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) explain so much empirical attention given to motivation in the following way: “It provides the primary impetus to initiate L2 learning and later the driving force to sustain the long, often tedious learning process (…). Without sufficient motivation, even individuals with the most remarkable abilities cannot accomplish long-term goals, and neither are appropriate curricula or good teaching enough (…) to ensure student achievement. On the other hand, high motivation can make up for considerable deficiencies both in one’s language aptitude and learning conditions” (p. 72). This said, research into motivation has undergone major transformations over the last five decades or so. It is possible to distinguish four stages in the evolution of such research (cf. Csizér, 2017; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2012). The first is the socio-psychological phase, which was mainly guided by the work of Gardner and his colleagues and focused on the role of positive attitudes towards the TL community in the process of L2 learning (e.g., Gardner, 1985, 2006; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). One of the crucial contributions of this stage was the introduction of the concept of integrativeness, defined as “genuine interest in learning the second language in order to come closer to the other language community” (Gardner, 2001, p. 5) and which affects basically every aspect of instructed and uninstructed L2 acquisition. This is further developed in the socio-educational model (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993), where learning outcomes, defined in linguistic or non-linguistic terms, are influenced by a number of contextual and ID variables, including motivation. The second stage can be described as the cognitive-situated phase, whose hallmark are attempts to forge links with theories of motivation in educational psychology and to shift the focus to the motivation processes that actually occur in the classroom. The most important developments here include the work of Crookes and Schmidt (1991), who related motivation in the classroom to such downto-earth factors as, among others, interest, activities, relevance, feedback, extrinsic rewards or past experiences, Dörnyei (1994), who singled out three components of the classroom setting specific to teacher, course and group, as well as Williams and Burden (1987), who organized influences on motivation around internal (e.g., intrinsic interest, perceived value an activity) and external (e.g., school environment, broader context) factors. Two influential psychological theories introduced into the field of SLA included self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), whose linchpin was the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and attribution theory (Weiner, 1992), which emphasizes the fact that learners’ motivational dispositions and the actions they take are determined by reasons to which past and future successes and failures are ascribed. The third stage, referred to as the process-oriented phase, shifted attention to changes in motivation that occur over longer or shorter periods of time. One theoretical foundation of this phase can be found in research carried out by Ushioda (1998, 2009), who introduced the person-in-context relational view of L2 motivation, arguing that it should be seen as an outcome of dynamic interactions between the individual and the context. Another crucial influence derived from the influential model proposed by Dörnyei and Ottó (1998), who identified three stages of the motivational process: the pre-actional stage, the actional stage and the postactional stage, each associated with a different set of motives. Studies grounded in this

2.6 Motivation

33

perspective provided evidence that both the reasons for L2 learning and the intensity of effort are subject to fluctuations, both over years or months, or within a single class or sequences of classes (e.g., Gardner et al., 2004; Hsieh, 2009; Koizumi & Matsuo, 1993; Pawlak, 2012c; Shoaib & Dörnyei, 2005; Williams et al., 2002). The fourth stage, which is currently in progress, is the socio-dynamic period, which draws on the tenets of complex dynamic systems theory (CDST, cf. Larsen-Freeman, 2016; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), zooming in on intricate interactions among a range of individual and contextual factors on various timescales, including such spanning minutes or seconds (cf. Dörnyei et al., 2015; Henry, 2015, 2019; MacIntyre & Serroul, 2015; Sampson, 2016; Waninge et al., 2015; see Hiver & Papi, 2020, for an overview). It should be emphasized that the stages only illustrate shifting foci of empirical investigations into motivation, highlighting perspectives that were or are dominant at a given time. In other words, while earlier theoretical stances may have been pushed into the background to some extent, they have never ceased to attract research interest and still produce invaluable insights into different aspects of L2 motivation (see Lamb et al., 2020). The bulk of current research into motivation in L2 learning draws on the theory of L2 motivational self system (L2MSS), which was proposed by Dörnyei (2005, 2009) and which was also adopted as point of reference in the investigation of the links between motivation and mastery of the passive in this book (see Study 5 in Chaps. 3 and 4). To quote from Csizér (2020), “The L2MSS has its roots in theories of self and identity in mainstream psychology, and the ways in which aspects of the self-concept contribute in the directing of behavior” (p. 73). Specifically, it combines the theory of possible selves put forward by Markus and Nurius (1986) and self-discrepancy theory advanced by Higgins (1987). The former conceptualizes future selves as individuals’ ideas regarding “(…) what they might become, what they would like to become, and what they are afraid of becoming” (Markus & Nurius, 1986, p. 954), while the latter focuses on the tensions between different selves (i.e., the ideal self, the ought-to self and the actual self) as well as the way in which the desire to get rid of these discrepancies fuels motivation. The L2MSS comprises three dimensions which together impinge on students’ learning behavior or the amount of effort that they are willing to invest in L2 learning and the degree of persistence that they manifest. The three constructs are: (1) the ideal L2 self , which refers to learners’ image of themselves as users of the TL in the future, (2) the ought-to L2 self , which reflects external pressures in terms of future TL ability which drive learners to meet certain expectations (e.g., coming from parents or teachers) or to avoid some negative consequences (e.g., getting a failing grade), and (3) the L2 learning experience, which is related to the impact of the immediate context on the learners’ situated, executive motives (e.g., the instructional techniques used, the teacher, peers, the coursebook, the curriculum, the experience of success or failure). Dörnyei (2009) came up with several conditions that needed to be met for future self-images to actually trigger motivation. In particular, such self-images should be available to the learner, differ from the present self, be sufficiently vivid and elaborate, realistic and achievable, congruent with the social environment, not

34

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

too easy to attain, regularly activated, driven by a set of effective procedural strategies as well as counteracted by a feared possible self (cf. Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). The L2MSS was validated in a number of large-scale, quantitative studies undertaken in a wide variety of contexts which included a number of constructs, many of which were used in Study 5 (see Sect. 3.5.5). Such empirical investigations were carried out, for example, by Kormos and Csizér (2008), Ryan (2009), Henry (2009), Taguchi et al. (2009), Csizér and Lukács (2010), Busse (2013), or Islam et al. (2013), with different versions of data collection tools being developed (see Papi et al., 2018). Surely, as pointed out above, the model has become a dominant theory of motivation in recent years (cf. Boo et al., 2015). Al-Hoorie (2018) has shown in his meta-analysis that the three components of the L2MSS are significantly, positively related to the criterion measure of intended effort, with the correlation being the strongest for the ideal L2 self and explaining 36% of the variance. Al-Hoorie (2018) also highlighted the mediating role of such factors as age, gender, major, language context and geographical location. There are also qualitative and mixedmethods studies that have adopted the L2MSS as a point of reference, such as those by Kim (2009), Lamb (2009), Pawlak (2012c), Irie and Brewster (2014), Lyons (2014), Miyahara (2014), or Csizér et al. (2015). Moreover, the theory has been related to numerous other constructs, such as the role of vision (e.g., Al-Shehri, 2009; Hessel, 2015), directed motivational currents (e.g., Dörnyei et al., 2016; Muir, 2020), identity (e.g., Segalowitz et al., 2009), multilingualism (e.g., Thompson, 2020) as well complex dynamic systems (e.g., Mercer, 2015). Interventional research has also been conducted, showing that future L2 selves can be successfully generated (e.g., Chan, 2014). While the L2MSS has made a lasting imprint on research on motivation in L2 learning, the model also suffers from a number of weaknesses. For example, studies embracing the model have differed with respect to methodological issues (e.g., reliance on diverse statistical procedures, such as correlational analysis, regression analysis or structural equation modeling, cf. Al-Hoorie, 2018). Another problem is differential focus on the three dimensions, with the L2 learning experience being the least frequently researched, although it surely plays a crucial role in learning different aspects of the TL (cf. Csizér & Kálmán, 2019; Dörnyei, 2019). Even more importantly, intended learning effort, which is the criterion measure employed in the vast majority of relevant studies, does not have to be related to actual L2 attainment, regardless of how this variable might be operationalized (cf. Al-Hoorie, 2018; Csizér, 2020; Moskovsky et al., 2016; Nagle, 2018). However, given the focus of the research project reported in this book, the most important is the fact that motivation, whether conceptualized in terms of the L2MSS or some other theoretical perspectives, has rarely been related to grammar attainment (see DeKeyser, 1993, for a notable exception), certainly not to the mastery of a specific TL feature. This is the gap that the current research project sought to rectify by investigating the relationships among different facets underlying the L2MSS and the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice.

2.7 Willingness to Communicate

35

2.7 Willingness to Communicate Willingness to communicate (WTC) is defined as the “readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using an L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547). The concept first appeared in the field of L1 communication studies and it initially focused on factors which prevented successful communication, being operationalized as a relatively stable personality trait (cf. McCroskey & Baer, 1985; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). Given the importance of interaction for L2 development (cf. Kim, 2017; Loewen & Sato, 2018), it is hardly surprising that before long the construct captured the attention of SLA specialists. They promptly arrived at the conclusion that L2 WTC cannot be equated with WTC in the mother tongue for the reason that even high levels of TL proficiency by no means guarantee that learners will be ready to speak and decide to engage in interaction in a given situation. This is due to the fact that in the case of L2 communication such a decision hinges not only on overall communicative ability or personality-related predispositions but also depends on an array of factors which are psychological, linguistic and contextual in nature. These unpredictable influences certainly make this attribute much more situated. Thus, MacIntyre et al. (1998, p. 546) made the point that an individual’s readiness to engage in L2 communication is not “a simple manifestation of WTC in the L1,” and later redefined the construct as “probability of initiating communication given choice and opportunity” (MacIntyre, 2007, p. 567). In fact, in the well-known pyramid model proposed by MacIntyre et al. (1998), WTC is conceptualized in terms of six layers of variables, with those most stable being placed at the bottom and those that are more transient and situated being located near the top, culminating in actual L2 use, in the classroom or outside. For example, since personality traits or intergroup climate can be considered as the most stable influences, they are included in the lowermost layer (Layer VI), whereas the desire to communicate with a specific person or state communicative confidence are bound to be affected by a number of situation-related factors and thus they appear much closer to the top, directly preceding L2 WTC (Layer III). As Peng and Woodrow (2010) point out, L2 WTC can thus be perceived as “a composite variable influenced by the joint effect of variables both internal and external to individual learners” (p. 835). The bulk of the research conducted to date has focused on the role of such variables in influencing the occurrence of WTC. Initially, virtually all empirical investigations of this kind sought to shed light on the role of different antecedents of WTC and represented a macro-perspective, where requisite data were collected by means of carefully designed tools administered to large samples in different contexts and then subjected to quantitative analysis by means of complex statistical procedures (cf. Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017). Such research endeavors allowed identification of crucial links between readiness to speak and other variables, also such extending beyond the model proposed by MacIntyre et al. (1998), some of them positive and others negative. While a detailed overview of such empirical evidence goes beyond the scope of the present work, it is warranted to highlight some of the

36

2 Individual Differences as Factors Mediating the Knowledge …

major findings. For example, high levels of self-perceived communicative competence have been shown to translate into heightened WTC whereas anxiety tends to negatively affect willingness to participate in communicative interactions (e.g., Donovan & MacIntyre, 2005; Hashimoto, 2002; Khajavy et al., 2016; Liu & Jackson, 2008; Peng, 2007; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2011, 2021; Yashima, 2002). Other research has indicated that WTC is positively affected, both directly or indirectly, by greater motivation, however this notion may operationalized (e.g., Ghonsooly et al., 2012; Liu & Park, 2012; Munezane, 2013; Peng, 2007; Wu & Lin, 2014), a greater degree of international posture, involving various forms of favorable disposition towards other cultures (e.g., Yashima, 2000) as well as greater extraversion (e.g., Cetinkaya, 2005; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). There is also empirical evidence showing that readiness to speak may be influenced by gender and age which, however, often operate in tandem with program type or school grade (e.g., Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; MacIntyre et al., 2002; Donovan & MacIntyre, 2005). Although such quantitative research has never been abandoned, recent years have witnessed a clear shift to the micro-perspective on WTC, whereby this phenomenon is investigated in a situated manner, with fewer participants but also with the help of more diversified and ingenious tools as well as reliance on mixed methods. Research of this kind, some of which has embraced the CDST perspective (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), has yielded invaluable information on a range of contextual, individual and social factors that are likely to shape learners’ readiness to interact in specific contexts. These include, among others, psychological conditions such as responsibility, excitement and security, modes of classroom organization (e.g., whole class, pair or group work), familiarity with and involvement of interlocutors, choice of tasks and topics, availability of pre-task planning, classroom atmosphere, teacherrelated factors, access to TL resources (e.g., requisite lexis), cultural background, or the use of new technologies (see e.g., Cao, 2011; Cao & Philip, 2006; Compton, 2007; de Saint Leger & Storch, 2009; Kang, 2005; Kruk, 2019, 2021; MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011; Pawlak et al., 2016; Peng, 2014; Weaver, 2007; Zarrinabadi, 2014). What is particularly important, most of these studies have provided convincing evidence that different constellations of such factors are responsible for the dynamicity of WTC over longer and shorter periods of time, or over different timescales, as the adherents to CDST would have it. A comment is also in order on some of the most recent developments in WTC research, such as the use of social network analysis in the form of network statistical models to explore possible changes in this respect (Gallagher & Robins, 2015), reliance on the idiodynamic methods, which allows second-by-second insights into WTC (MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011), the use of the focused essay techniques to better understand changes in readiness to speak (MacIntyre, 2011), or attempts to link WTC to specific TL skills and subsystems such as pronunciation (Baran-Łucarz, 2014) or vocabulary (Meltem & Oz, 2021), as well as new constructs including enjoyment (Khajavy et al., 2021), reticence (Negah, 2021), teacher immediacy and self-disclosure (Zahra et al., 2021), or the ecosystems framework (Gallagher, 2021). Particularly relevant in the context of the present research project is the contribution

2.7 Willingness to Communicate

37

by Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2017), who combined a macro- and microperspective to examine the WTC of English majors in Poland. In the process, they designed a questionnaire (the WTCI) that was employed in Study 6 (see Sect. 3.5.6 in Chap. 3) as well as a comprehensive model of influences on WTC in a classroom setting. It should be emphasized that, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, thus far researchers have seldom looked into the links between WTC and attainment, particularly such that would be operationalized in terms of the use of a specific grammar feature. One such study was undertaken by Mahmoodi and Moazam (2014), who found a link between self-reported WTC and Arabic language achievement. Unfortunately, similar to most other existing research of this kind, the study was small-scale, included simple analytical procedures and very few participants. This said, two empirical investigations deserve special attention as they sought to relate readiness to speak to the provision of corrective feedback. In the first of them, Tavakoli and Zarrinabadi (2016), showed that explicit CF was more likely to enhance WTC than implicit CF since it promoted participants’ L2 self-competence. In the second, Pawlak (2015) found that WTC mediated the effects of output-prompting but not input-providing feedback, which contributed in all likelihood to greater effects of the former on a measure of implicit knowledge of the English passive voice. Given the scarcity of empirical evidence regarding the role of WTC in moderating the development of different dimensions of L2 grammar knowledge, this is the gap that Study 6 attempted to fill (see Chaps. 3 and 4).

2.8 Conclusion The present chapter has highlighted the importance of ID factors in shaping the process of learning L2 grammar in both instructed and uninstructed conditions, as well as directly and indirectly impacting the product of such learning in terms of the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of grammar structures. Even though the scant overall empirical evidence in this respect was briefly mentioned, the main focus was on ID factors whose influence on the mastery of TL grammar (i.e., the English passive voice) was explored in the present research project, that is, beliefs about grammar instruction, grammar learning strategies, working memory, motivation and willingness to communicate. In each case, the relevant theoretical perspectives were presented, the findings of prior investigations were overviewed and the gaps in existing empirical evidence were highlighted. Chapter 3 to follow is dedicated in its entirety to describing the methodology of the research project.

Chapter 3

Methodology of the Research Project

3.1 Introduction As was made evident in the preceding chapter, there is still a paucity of research that would look into the mediating role of ID variables in determining both the process and outcomes of L2 learning. Several caveats are in order at this point. First, most of the existing empirical evidence is related to the mastery of TL grammar, whether it is conceptualized globally in terms of overall attainment or with respect to the use of particular TL features or various sets of such features. Second, ID factors have the potential to mediate not only the efficacy of specific instructional options but also ultimate levels of attainment in terms of grammar, whether this is the effect of learning in tutored or largely untutored conditions. Third, as elucidated in Chap. 1, the mastery of different aspects of the TL and in particular its grammatical system, has to be considered in relation to explicit and implicit or highly automatized L2 knowledge. It should be reiterated here that the former can only be drawn upon under propitious circumstances (e.g., adequate time to fall back on pertinent rules or lexical chunks) whereas the latter is indispensable to employ specific TL features in real-time, spontaneous interaction under time pressure (cf. DeKeyser, 1998, 2010, 2017; Ellis, 2004, 2006a, 2009a; Pawlak, 2019a). The aim of the research project presented in this volume was to fill the existing gap by reporting the results of a large-scale study addressing the mediating role of several cognitive and affective ID factors in TL grammar achievement. These factors, presented at length in Chap. 2, included beliefs about grammar instruction, grammar learning strategies, working memory, motivation, and willingness to communicate. This chapter provides a description of the methodology of this research project in terms of its aims and research questions, participants, TL feature under investigation (i.e., the English passive voice), instruments employed, procedures used for data collection, and ways in which such data were analyzed. What should be pointed out at the outset is that, owing to unpredictable circumstances as well as difficulties in collecting requisite data from all the participants, it was not possible to provide a © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8_3

39

40

3 Methodology of the Research Project

composite model of how the selected ID factors interacted with explicit and implicit (automatized) knowledge of the English passive. In effect, the present chapter reports a total of six separate studies that explored the mediating role of these variables. As will be indicated below, some of these studies have already been published in the form of journal articles or book chapters while others are entirely original and appear for the first time within the confines of this publication. For the sake of clarity, issues relevant to the entire research project are typically discussed before those relating to specific empirical investigations.

3.2 Aims of the Research Project and Specific Research Questions As mentioned on serval occasions throughout this book, the overall aim of the research project was to shed light on the mediating role of selected ID factors, both cognitive and affective in character, with respect to the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive. These ID variables included BGI, GLS, WM, motivation, as well as WTC. For this general aim to be achieved, new data collection tools needed to be developed and others had to be modified for the purpose of the investigation (see Sect. 3.5, for details). The following research questions were posed for the six studies comprising the research project: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

What is the relationship among different aspects of beliefs about grammar instruction and the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit (highly automatized) knowledge of the English passive voice? (Study 1; cf. Pawlak, 2021c) What is the effect of different categories of grammar learning strategies on the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice, also taking into account grammar attainment in terms of final course grades, self-assessment of overall TL ability, length of experience in learning English and perceived importance of TL grammar? (Study 2) What are the relationships among two facets of WM, namely, the phonological short term memory and working memory capacity, and productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice, also taking into consideration grammar attainment in terms of final course grades? (Studies 3 and 4; cf. Pawlak & Biedro´n, 2019, 2021) What are the relationships among various facets of motivation and the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice? (Study 5)? What are the relationships among various facets of willingness to communicate and the productive and receptive aspects of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice? (Study 6).

3.2 Aims of the Research Project and Specific Research Questions

41

Based on thorough examination of existing literature as well as an overview of the available, in most cases scant, empirical evidence, some relationships among the ID factors in question and L2 knowledge were hypothesized. In particular, it was assumed that both aspects of WM, that is, PSTM and WMC, would account to some extent for differences in the acquisition of the TL feature in question, both in terms of explicit and implicit knowledge, with the former playing a more important role in this respect than the latter. When it comes to the remaining ID variables (i.e., beliefs, GLS, motivation, WTC), it was assumed that they would account for the acquisition of the English passive as well, with those effects varying on the specific facets of these variables and the type of L2 representation.

3.3 Participants Although, as pointed out above, the exact number of participants in the specific studies (i.e., Studies 1–6) varied owing to the difficulty in collecting requisite data, the sample had a number of characteristics in common. In the first place, all of the participants were Polish university-level students majoring in English who followed three-year BA programs in three institutions of higher education, located in mediumsized towns in Poland. They were enrolled in years 1, 2 and 3 of such programs, which are intended to educate professionals in relation to this L2, individuals who are highly qualified to work in the capacity of English teachers, translators, interpreters, business representatives or media advisors and thus required to attain high level of TL proficiency. In order to facilitate the achievement of such stringent requirements, the program included an intensive course in English, which was in most cases divided into components such as grammar, pronunciation, speaking, writing or integrated skills. In addition, the students were expected to get a credit for a number of content classes focusing on literature, history, culture, linguistics, literature, language teaching methodology, and several electives (i.e., seminars, specialized courses), most of which were taught in the TL. While such details may have differed to some extent in specific studies, participants reported having learnt English for about 12 years. Their proficiency in this language can be described as falling somewhere in between B2 and C1, depending on the level in the program, although there was considerable individual variation in this respect, with some students in the same year (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) representing sometimes disparate levels of TL ability. Even though the majority of students reported having regular contact with English on a daily basis, few of them had the opportunity to actually interact with native speakers of English or its proficient users, whether face-to-face or online. Rather, exposure to English was typically confined to the media, either through engaging in synchronous or asynchronous communication or accessing different types of resources in English (e.g., through Facebook, Instagram, Netflix, etc.). More specific information about the participants of the six studies is presented below:

42

3 Methodology of the Research Project

• Study 1 (BGI): 132 Polish university students majoring in English (88 females and 44 males); experience in learning English amounted to 11.98 (SD = 2.84) years and they rated the importance of L2 grammar as 4.15 (SD = 0.62) on a 5-point scale (1 lowest and 5 highest). • Study 2 (GLS): 193 Polish university students majoring in English (138 females and 55 males); experience in learning English amounted to 11.88 (SD = 2.50) years and they rated the importance of L2 grammar as 4.27 (SD = 1.09) on a 5-point scale (1 lowest and 5 highest). • Study 3 (WM): 156–194 Polish university students majoring in English depending on the specific measure; Pawlak and Biedro´n’s (2019) study included 156 participants (104 females and 52 males); experience in learning English amounted to 12.15 (SD = 2.64) years and they rated the importance of L2 grammar as 4.24 (SD = 0.98) on a 5-point scale (1 lowest and 5 highest). • Study 4 (WM): 171 Polish university students majoring in English (116 females and 55 males); experience in learning English amounted to 12.05 (SD = 2.58) years and they rated the importance of L2 grammar as 4.25 (SD = 1.05) on a 5-point scale (1 lowest and 5 highest). • Study 5 (motivation): 138 Polish university students majoring in English (106 females and 32 males); experience in learning English amounted to 12.08 (SD = 2.42) years and they rated the importance of L2 grammar as 4.32 (SD = 0.88) on a 5-point scale (1 lowest and 5 highest). • Study 6 (WTC): 122 Polish university students majoring in English (98 females and 24 males); experience in learning English amounted to 11.96 (SD = 2.54) years and they rated the importance of L2 grammar as 4.36 (SD = 1.02) on a 5-point scale (1 lowest and 5 highest).

3.4 Targeted Structure Whenever there is a need to determine the level of TL proficiency for research purposes, whether in general or with respect to specific skills and subsystems, researchers are presented with a dilemma of how best this proficiency should be established and the empirical investigation described here was no exception (cf. Pawlak, 2021c; see Sect. 1.5 in Chap. 1). The first issue pertained to whether to rely on objective indices of the knowledge of grammar, such as course grades or examination scores, or subjective ones, as manifested in some kind of self-assessment. The second had to do with whether to take into account overall command of this TL subsystem, which would have perhaps been the best choice, or to zoom in on just one specific grammatical feature instead. On careful consideration, a decision was made to opt for objective measures, although self-evaluation was also considered as a mediating variable in some of the reported studies. More importantly, an attempt to obtain a general picture of grammar attainment was abandoned in view of the fact that it would have been exceedingly difficult to design tasks that would have tapped into the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge for

3.4 Targeted Structure

43

this group of participants. This is because the choice of the grammar structures to be included in such measures would have had to be arbitrary at any proficiency level, not least because ensuring a balanced choice of possibly relevant structures would have represented a major challenge. There would have also likely arisen insurmountable problems with designing tasks that would have necessitated the use of the targeted features or at the very least enhanced the likelihood of such use (cf. Loschky & BleyVroman, 1993). For these reasons, it was decided to gauge the mastery of English grammar in relation to a specific grammar structure in English. This having been said, the choice of such a suitable grammar feature proved to be a major challenge as well, a challenge that needed to be successfully met if the aims of the research project were to be attained. The main problem was the fact that, as English majors in different levels of the program, the participants had been familiarized to a greater or lesser extent with most of the grammar structures in English and those that might have still been alien to them were quite infrequent, could quite easily be replaced with more common constructions and thus did not exactly lend themselves to inclusion in focused-communication tasks (i.e., such that require the use of a specific structure for their successful completion; Ellis, 2003). Thus, it was necessary to find a grammar structure that participants knew to some extent but which was challenging and versatile enough to be problematic both in terms of the application of relevant rules and its utilization in more spontaneous interaction. Taking into account such considerations, in the end, the passive voice was selected as a feature that met all these criteria. The rationale for this choice was that it was a grammar structure that all the participants were familiar with and knew how to use to some extent. At the same time, the necessity of reliance on a wide variety of tenses, aspects as well as regular and irregular verb forms to express the intended meanings ensured considerable variation in performance on different measures. It is also warranted to point out that the English passive voice can be viewed as posing considerable learning difficulty in terms of both explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge (see Sect. 1.3 in Chap. 1, cf. Ellis, 2006a). On the one hand, fully understanding the rules governing the use of the passive voice and being able to consciously apply them accurately, meaningfully and appropriately (LarsenFreeman, 2003) in different contexts may in itself pose a considerable challenge even for quite advanced learners. On the other hand, with this complexity in mind, it should not come as a surprise that it is exceedingly hard to employ the different variants of this feature in communicative interaction, whether this necessitates the ability to perform complex processing operations (Pienemann & Lenzing, 2015) or, more realistically, proceduralization and automatization of the existing explicit knowledge (DeKeyser, 2015, 2017).

3.5 Data Collection Instruments The requisite data were collected by means of instruments that were either specifically designed for the purpose of the research project or constituted modifications of

44

3 Methodology of the Research Project

research tools used in previous empirical investigations, mainly those undertaken by the present author. These included measures of productive and receptive dimensions of the explicit and implicit (highly automatized) knowledge of the English passive voice as well as the questionnaires intended to tap into the ID factors in question. These instruments are described in detail in the following subsections. Three important caveats are in order at this juncture. First, all of these tools had been piloted with different groups of English majors not involved in the research project as such and some adjustments were introduced. Second, English was used in all the instruments except tests of working memory as it was believed that, as English majors, students represented a requisite level of TL proficiency. Third, the benchmarks for the interpretation of reliability indices are based on Dörnyei (2007).

3.5.1 Measures of the Mastery of the Targeted Structure (All Studies) As mentioned above, the extent to which participants had mastered the targeted structure, that is, the different facets of the English passive, was gauged in terms of the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of this feature. The four measures that were employed for this purpose are described below (see Appendix A). Measure of explicit productive knowledge This was a traditional pen-and-paper test consisting of 15 verbs that had to be put in the correct form in a continuous text describing Washington, DC. Care was taken to include different variants of the passive, necessitating the use of different tenses, aspects, modal verbs and verb forms. No time limit was imposed and participants could take as long as they wished to complete this task, although most of them completed it in under 25 min. Each sentence could be accorded 0, 0.5 or 1 points based on how serious the error was (e.g., incorrect use of tense or aspect resulted in subtraction of 0.5 point whereas no points were given when students failed to employ the passive voice or completely omitted one component of the construction). 20% of the tests were coded by another researcher assisting with the research project and interrater reliability equaled 0.92. The Cronbach’s alpha value ranged from 0.88 to 0.92 in the six studies, which indicates that the internal consistency reliability of this tool was satisfactory. The passage began in the following way: Washington DC (1) (locate) ____________ in the District of Columbia along the Potomac River. It (2) (design) ____________ by the French architect Pierre L’Enfant in the late 18th century.

Measure of explicit receptive knowledge This measure took the form of an untimed grammaticality judgment test where the participants were instructed to decide on the correctness of 15 sentences and to offer

3.5 Data Collection Instruments

45

a justification in cases where they believed that the sentences were inaccurate. The justifications could be provided either in English or in Polish, the students’ mother tongue. 11 out of the 15 sentences were correct (73%). Each response could receive 0, 0.5 or 1 points, depending on whether a justification was included as well as its nature and quality (i.e., failure to supply a justification or provision of an erroneous one resulted in subtraction of 0.5 points). 20% of the tests were coded by another researcher assisting with the research project, with interrater reliability amounting to 0.88. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure ranged from 0.62 to 0.68 in different studies, a value that cannot be viewed as entirely satisfactory. Examples of two items from this test are provided below: They haven’t seen each other since then. (correct). The new blue car has fitted with an alarm. (incorrect)

Measure of implicit productive knowledge This was a focused communication task (Ellis, 2003), which had to be performed under time pressure. The participants were requested to describe a house situated in New York City, based on 15 prompts that were accompanied by other details necessary to facilitate the description. The students had two minutes to familiarize themselves with this information and then were given four minutes to describe the location. Since many of the participants experienced evident difficulty in completing the task within the envisaged time frame, it can be assumed that time constrains were considerable for them and that it was in most cases implicit (automatized knowledge) that underlay their performance. The students completed the task individually and their oral production was audio-recorded by means of Dictaphones. A total of 15 points could be accorded for this task, which was a direct reflection of the number of prompts provided. Each utterance related to a particular prompt received 0, 0.5 or 1 points (i.e., this was determined using the same criteria as those applied to assess the test of explicit productive knowledge). Also in this case, 20% of the data were coded by another researcher assisting with the research project, with interrater reliability reaching 0.79. The internal consistency reliability of the test ranged between 0.82 and 0.89, as determined by calculating Cronbach’s alpha, values that were deemed satisfactory. Examples of prompts used on this measure follow: locate the suburbs near a beautiful lake and park, surround by a garden, can see from the highway

Measure of implicit receptive knowledge This measure took the form of a timed grammaticality judgment test in which participants were asked to decide whether 15 sentences included in a PowerPoint presentation were correct or incorrect. 11 out of 15 sentences were correct (73%). Each sentence in the presentation was shown for an average of seven seconds, with the caveat that the time allotted to students to make a decision was adjusted to some extent, depending on its length. In this case, the evaluation process was very straightforward, with each response being accorded 0 or 1 points and thus there was no need to

46

3 Methodology of the Research Project

establish inter-rater reliability. Cronbach’s alpha was the lowest in this case, ranging from 0.54 to 0.62, which is surely cause for concern and raises doubts about internal consistency reliability. The following are examples of both accurate and inaccurate sentences included in this test: They have been seen together once or twice. The trade unions have asked for fuel prices to reduce.

Two important comments are necessary here. First, in order to minimize the danger that the need to recall and employ relevant rules would in some way facilitate subsequent use of the targeted structure or trigger the application of memorized chunks in which the English passive voice appears, a decision was made to administer tests of implicit knowledge before those tapping explicit knowledge. Second, following a similar rationale, in each case, the measures eliciting production of the passive preceded those that were intended to assess its reception.

3.5.2 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction (Study 1) Participants’ beliefs about grammar instruction were determined by means of a slightly modified version of the instrument developed by the present author and employed in two previous empirical investigations referred to in Chap. 2 (Pawlak, 2011a, 2013a). The points of reference in the process of designing the tool were state-of-the-art publications pertaining to form-focused instruction in general and grammar teaching in particular (e.g., Ellis, 2001, 2006b; Larsen-Freeman, 2010; Loewen, 2011, 2020; Nassaji, 2017; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Pawlak, 2006, 2011a, 2013b, 2017a, 2020a) as well as the data collection instruments developed for the purpose of studies undertaken, among others, by Schulz (2001), Loewen et al. (2009) and Spada et al. (2009) (see Appendix B). The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first was a demographic section primarily aimed to gather background information related to gender, level in the program, self-evaluation of the mastery of the TL, both in general and in relation to specific skills and subsystems, the grade in the grammar course at the end of the previous semester, as well as everyday out-of-class access to English. A 6-point scale was employed for self-evaluation (1—lowest, 6—highest), which roughly represents the grading system used in Polish institutions of higher education in which halves are used as well (i.e., 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5). This section also included one attitudinal item, where students were requested to rate the importance of grammar learning on a 5-point scale (1—lowest, 5—highest). The core of the tool included 30 Likert-scale items related to participants’ beliefs in six areas presented below. Cronbach’s alpha values are provided in each case as well and they indicate high levels of internal consistency reliability for all the subscales (cf. Pawlak, 2021c):

3.5 Data Collection Instruments

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

47

overall importance of grammar instruction, also in relation to specific TL skills (9 items, e.g., “I believe my English will improve quickly if I study and practice grammar;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81); design of the syllabus (i.e., structural vs. task-based or task-supported; 2 items, e.g., “I like the teacher to give me a list of structures that will be taught in a course;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72); planning grammar-oriented lessons (i.e., isolated vs. integrated teaching, or the extent to which instruction follows the PPP sequence or is embedded in communication-based tasks; 4 items, e.g., “I like to know exactly which grammar point I am studying;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74); ways in which grammar structures are introduced (i.e., deduction vs. induction, reliance on first language, the use of grammatical terminology; 7 items, e.g., “It is best when the teacher explains grammar rules;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86); ways in which grammar structures are practiced (i.e., controlled vs. communicative practice, production-oriented or reception-based instructional options; 4 items, e.g., “I prefer to first understand how a grammar structure is used before I have to produce it;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78); correction of errors in the use of grammar structures (i.e., its focus, timing, source as well as corrective technique used; 4 items, e.g., “I like the teacher to correct my grammar mistakes after an activity is completed;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88).

It should be noted that statements representing each of the six categories were shuffled throughout the inventory rather than grouped together. Participants were asked to indicate the degree of their agreement with specific items on a 5-point scale (ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree). Some of the items were worded in such a way that they needed to be key-reversed for analysis. Importantly, the items were formulated in such a manner that a higher mean on categories 2–6 represented a more traditional approach to teaching grammar. Finally, when it comes to the third part, it contained four open-ended questions. Two of them concerned reasons why the students liked or disliked learning grammar, while the other two pertained to the most preferred and the most disliked ways in which this TL subsystem should be taught. However, the data obtained in this section were not taken into account in the study reported in Chap. 4 (Pawlak, 2021c).

3.5.3 Grammar Learning Strategies (Study 2) The data concerning the use of GLS were collected through the Grammar Learning Strategy Inventory (GLSI), which is a standardized questionnaire that was designed and validated by Pawlak (2013c, 2018, 2020c), based on what, to the best knowledge of the present author, remains the only comprehensive and inclusive classification of GLS that he proposed and that was introduced in Sect. 2.4 in Chap. 2. As will be recalled, the division expanded upon the initial work of Oxford et al. (2007),

48

3 Methodology of the Research Project

also taking into consideration the general taxonomy of language learning strategies, introduced by Cohen (2010), which reconciled the classifications proposed by Oxford (1990), and O’Malley and Chamot (1990), the taxonomy of possible options in FFI first introduced by Ellis (1997) and then modified by Pawlak (2006), as well as the existing empirical evidence concerning different aspects of GLS use. Perhaps the most important thing about this classification is that not only does it take into account the specificity of learning and using grammar, albeit without differentiating between different L2s, but also takes heed of the pivotal distinction between explicit and implicit (automatized) L2 knowledge (DeKeyser, 2017; Ellis, 2009a). With this in mind, the data collection tool consisted of 70 Likert-scale items divided into four main categories of GLS (see Appendix C) as follows (Cronbach’s alpha values are provided for each category as well): (1)

(2)

3)

(4)

metacognitive GLS, which are used to manage and supervise the process of learning grammar (8 items, e.g., “I pay attention to grammar structures when reading or listening” or “I know my strengths and weaknesses when it comes to learning grammar;” Part A in Appendix C; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80); cognitive GLS, which are directly involved in learners’ endeavors directed at actually learning and using TL grammar (50 items in four categories further described below; Part B in Appendix C; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79 for the entire category); affective GLS, which are employed to deal with the multifarious emotions that can come to the surface when learning and using grammar structures (7 items, e.g., “I encourage myself to practice grammar when I know I have problems with a structure” or “I talk to other people about how I feel when learning grammar;” Part C in Appendix C; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.61); social GLS, which involve some kind of collaboration with others when learning and using TL grammar structures (5 items, e.g., “I ask the teacher to repeat or explain a grammar point if I do not understand” or “I practice grammar structures with other students;” Part D in Appendix C; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71).

In light of the numerous ways in which learners can choose to approach and selfregulate grammar learning in the TL by means of GLS, the category of cognitive GLS constitutes the core of the entire classification and thus the GLSI as a whole. That is why, it is the most comprehensive and it is therefore subdivided into four subcategories that are described in more detail below: (1)

(2)

GLS used to aid the production and comprehension of grammar in communicative tasks, such as those that aid the employment of specific grammar features in spontaneous interactions (10 items, e.g., “I try to use specific grammar structures in communication” or “I compare my speech and writing with that of more proficient people to see how I can improve;” Part B1 in Appendix C; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80); GLS used to develop explicit knowledge of grammar, with a recourse to deduction (e.g., trying to understand and remember grammar rules introduced in the

3.5 Data Collection Instruments

(3)

(4)

49

coursebook or provided by the teacher) or induction (e.g., discovering rules by means of different resources, either on one’s own or in cooperation with other students) (24 items, e.g., “I paraphrase the rules I am given because I understand them better in my own words” or “I create my own hypotheses about how structures work and check these hypotheses;” Part B2 in Appendix C; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89); GLS used to develop implicit (or highly automatized) knowledge of grammar, which are based on both controlled practice (e.g., drawing on relevant rules in different types of exercises, such that involve filling out gaps, paraphrasing or translation) and communicative practice (e.g., using specific grammar structures in actual speaking or writing); in both cases such practice can entail a focus on producing the TL feature or just comprehending the relationships between its form, meaning and use (10 items, e.g., “I repeat the rules and examples to myself or rewrite them many times” or “I listen to and read texts containing many examples of a grammar structure;” Part B3 in Appendix C; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83); GLS used to deal with corrective feedback on errors made when using grammar, whatever form this feedback might take as well as when and by whom it might be supplied (6 items, e.g., “I pay attention to teacher correction when I do grammar exercises and try to repeat the correct version” or “I try to notice and self-correct my mistakes when practicing grammar;” Part B4 in Appendix C; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93).

Similarly to the tool used to tap into BGI, also in this case participants were asked to indicate their responses on a 5-point scale (1—it does not apply to me at all and 5—it perfectly describes my actions and thoughts). At the time of administration, the GLSI was accompanied by two additional elements. The first was a background section eliciting information about students’ gender, experience in learning English, self-evaluation of English proficiency on a 6-point scale (1—lowest, 6—highest), the final grade in the grammar course in the previous semester, perceived importance of grammar in learning English on a 5-point scale (1—lowest, 5—highest), as well as access to the TL outside of the classes taught as part of the program. The second included four open-ended queries concerning potential strategies for learning grammar not included in the inventory, favorite ways of learning grammar, actions taken to use the grammar structures taught in communication, as well as problems encountered when learning grammar and ways of confronting them. The data obtained in this part were not taken into account in this research project which was quantitative in nature.

3.5.4 Working Memory (Studies 3 and 4) Four measures of working memory were employed in the current research project, two of which were already available and had been used in previous studies and the

50

3 Methodology of the Research Project

other two were specifically developed for the purpose of this investigation. Moreover, while two tests were intended to tap into phonological short-term memory, the other two aimed to gauge working memory capacity. An important caveat is that while not all of those measures were used in Studies 3 and 4, both of which have already been published (i.e., Pawlak & Biedro´n, 2019, 2021, respectively), the relevant data will be added to the presentation of the former in Chap. 4. The four measures are described below with two types of information in parentheses: first, the facet of WM targeted, that is, PSTM or WCM, and, second, the studies in which they were utilized or reported (see Appendix D for examples of items and instructions used on the four tests). Digit span (PSTM) (Study 3) Digit span is a subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R), a series of standardized tests used to evaluate intellectual abilities in adults, and it taps into attention, concentration and mental control. The test was adapted for use with the Polish population by Brzezi´nski et al. (1996). It consists of sets of digits that have to be repeated initially forwards and then backwards (e.g., “Repeat the numbers 8, 1, 3 in reverse order”). Generally speaking, digit span is viewed as a nonverbal test of PSTM, but backward repetition is likely to engage the central executive as well because performing this task is bound to place much greater demands on WM than sheer forward repetition. With respect to scoring, every item consists of two trials, each of which can be accorded 1 or 0 points, with the test being discontinued when the test-taker receives 0 on both of these trials. The total score on the test is 28 points. Split-half reliabilities for the WAIS-R (Pl) were 0.88–0.93 for full scale, 0.86–0.91 for verbal scale, and 0.79–0.88 for non-verbal scale, depending on age. The validity coefficients, determined in terms of correlations with other intelligence tests such as, for example, Raven’s Matrices were in the range of 0.39–0.60. Nonword repetition (PSTM) (Studies 3 and 4) The Polish Nonword Span (PNWSPAN) was developed by Zychowicz et al. (2018) as a test of PSTM, which includes sequences of Polish nonwords which are defined as worldlike forms that do not exist in a language but correspond to the phonological rules of this language, even though no meaning is associated with them. All nonwords included in the test constituted phonologically possible sequences of five Polish sounds in a CVCVC order, each consisting of two syllables, which represents the most popular pattern in the language in question (e.g., zaduk, homil, julet, nomin, gares). The nonwords included in the test manifested high phonotactic probability and they were also checked against corpora of the Polish, English and German languages in order to eliminate the danger that they constitute real words in any of these languages. Additionally, the likelihood that these items represent actual words was assessed by five competent judges (four linguists and a psychologist), with Kendall’s coefficient of concordance exceeding 0.90. The nonwords were pre-recorded by means of the Audacity software and presented in sets gradually increasing from two to six (i.e., 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6), with three trials included in each stage and a total of 60 nonwords. The test was administered individually and participants were instructed to repeat

3.5 Data Collection Instruments

51

the nonwords in the correct order. Since the absolute span procedure suffers from numerous disadvantages (cf. Linck et al., 2014), a decision was made to use partial scoring, with each item receiving from 0 to 3 points, depending on recall quality (i.e., if an item is recalled correctly, it is accorded three points and if not, the type of error is taken into account, with the use of a correct word in incorrect order resulting in two points and the use of a partly correct word in correct order being given one point). The total score on the test is 180 points. The Cronbach’s alpha value for this test equaled 0.68. Polish Reading Span (WMC) (Studies 3 and 4) The Polish Reading Span (PRSPAN), developed by Biedro´n and Szczepaniak (2012) constitutes a Polish adaptation of the American Reading Span (cf. Engle et al., 1999; Waters & Caplan, 1996), which is considered to be a valid and reliable measure of WMC (Conway et al., 2008). The measure entails the performance of a dual task in which participants are instructed to read a series of sentences and at the same time attend to the last word of each sentence so that it can be recollected at a later time. The test is composed of eight sets of sentences, which contain from 3 to 10 sentences in Polish. Some sentences make sense in everyday life while others do not, but all of them are grammatically correct. Each sentence is approximately 10 words in length and it is accompanied by an unrelated word at the end, which is a two-syllable noun (e.g., “A frog said that it is a nice day today. Tree” or “When we decide on all the details, we will let you know in writing or by phone. Lamp”). Participants are requested to the read aloud sentences which are shown one at a time on a computer screen at three-second intervals, try to remember the unrelated words, but also to indicate whether a given sentence is acceptable on an answer sheet. After the last sentence in each set has been presented, a blank slide is displayed as a cue for the test-taker to write down in an answer sheet all the words that he or she has recalled. The maximum score on the test is 52 points, which represents the aggregated number of the words remembered perfectly on all trials. Test–retest reliability for this measure equaled 0.89, its internal reliability consistency, as determined through calculating Cronbach’s alpha, amounted to 0.69, and the standardized items alpha was 0.76. Polish Listening Span (WMC) (Studies 3 and 4) The Polish Listening Span (PLSPAN) is a measure of WMC that was developed by Zychowicz et al. (2017) specifically for the Polish population. Also in this case participants perform a dual task but, instead of reading sentences that are displayed to them, they have to fall back on the auditory modality. The test is made up of 9 sets of sentences, increasing in size from two in Set 1 to ten in Set 9, with a total of 54 sentences. Similarly to the PRSPAN, all the sentences are grammatically correct but while some of them are logical in the context of everyday communication, others are not (e.g., “I was running as fast as I could because it was raining hard” vs. “The goat quickly said that it surely preferred the microphone”). Both length and complexity of the test items were carefully controlled for, with each sentence being approximately 8 words in length, lasting from 2.77 to 3.56 s when recorded, with the average of

52

3 Methodology of the Research Project

3.06 s. In addition, each sentence ended with a common noun in the nominative case to minimize the danger of confusion with word endings. The sets were recorded using Audacity software, with 1.5 s gaps between sentences. The participants’ task is to determine whether or not each sentence makes sense in order to ensure the processing of input and, analogically to the PRSPAN, to memorize the last word for subsequent recollection. The test is administered individually and its completion takes about ten minutes. Each set is followed by a pause during which the test-takers are asked to recollect the words they remember, not necessarily in the order in which the sentences were presented. Before taking the actual test, participants are presented with two trail sets to ensure that they understand the tasks and have a chance to practice the dual focus of the task. A total of 41 points can be scored on this test. Also in this case partial scoring is employed, with the final score representing the number of words that are correctly remembered in all the sets. Content validity was assessed by five competent judges, four linguists and a psychologist. Test–retest reliability of the PLSPAN, as established in a pilot study, stood at 0.91. The instrument was also characterized by ample internal consistency reliability, with the Kuder Richardson Alpha amounting to 0.76.

3.5.5 Motivation (Study 5) The point of reference for tapping into various facets of motivation was the survey developed by Pawlak (2012b), which drew upon the theory of L2 motivational self system (cf. Csizér; 2017, 2020; Dörnyei, 2009; see Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 2 for a thorough discussion of this theory), also taking into account the specificity of the Polish educational setting. Since the initial tool was created for secondary school students, it had to be adapted to better reflect the motivational processes of the participants of the research project, that is, university students majoring in English. The survey was designed on the basis of tools previously used in studies conducted by Ryan (2005), Taguchi et al. (2009), and Csizér and Kormos (2009). It is composed of a total of 42 Likert-scale statements. The internal consistency reliability, established by calculating Cronbach’s alpha, amounted to 0.88, which is satisfactory. The specific facets of motivation that were included in the scale are listed below together with examples of relevant items and respective Cronbach’s alpha values (see Appendix E): • motivated learning behavior, defined as effort and persistence in learning English (5 items, e.g., “I can honestly say that I am doing everything I can to learn English;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88); • ideal L2 self , understood as students’ perceptions of themselves as successful users of English in the future (4 items, e.g., “I can imagine myself living abroad and communicating in English;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92);

3.5 Data Collection Instruments

53

• ought-to L2 self , related to the opinions concerning the need to learn English expressed by significant others, such as friends, teachers, or other respected individuals (4 items, e.g., “Learning English is necessary because people surrounding me expect me to do it;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76); • family influence, concerned with the encouragement offered by different family members, in particular parents (e.g., 4 items, e.g., “My parents encourage me to take advantage of every opportunity to speak English;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85); • L2 learning experience, reflecting perceived quality of engagement with various aspects of the learning process and the extent to which learners enjoy learning English in specific contexts, whether in the classroom or outside (3 items, e.g., “I like the atmosphere during my English classes;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74); • instrumentality, which is related to the regulation of goals for sheer pragmatic gains or in order to avoid adverse consequences if these goals are not met (5 items, e.g., “Learning English is important to me because the mastery of this language will increase chances of being promoted in my future job;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82); • linguistic self-confidence, reflecting one’s conviction that learning English will be successful to allow its adept use in different contexts (4 items, e.g., “I am confident that I will be able to read all types of texts in English, even specialized ones, in the future;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77); • English anxiety, related to learners’ apprehension about using English in different situations (3 items, e.g., “I get anxious and make mistakes when I speak English in class;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71); • interest in English and its culture, reflective of the readiness to familiarize oneself with different aspects of the English language and the culture it represents (3 items, e.g., “I am very interested in the way of life of native speakers of English;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72); • travel orientation, related to the importance of learning English for visiting other countries (3 items, e.g., “Learning English is important for me because I want to travel;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86); • lack of ethnocentrism, connected with openness to the values and ways of life represented by other cultures and languages (4 items, e.g., “I think that Polish is changing for the better under the influence of English;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72). The statements representing the different facets of motivation listed above were scattered throughout the inventory rather than grouped together. Participants were requested to indicate the degree of their agreement with the items using a 6-point scale, where 1 represented complete disagreement and 6 stood for complete agreement. Some of the statements included in the questionnaire needed to be keyreversed for analysis. The instrument also contained a short demographic section where students were requested to indicate their gender, year of study and length of experience in learning English as a foreign language.

54

3 Methodology of the Research Project

3.5.6 Willingness to Communicate (Study 6) Participants’ willingness to communicate was measured by means of the research instrument that was specifically developed for the Polish educational context by Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2017). The initial version of the instrument was constructed by Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2016) on the basis of a number of existing inventories, namely: (1) In-Class WTC (Peng & Woodrow, 2010), Out-of-Class WTC in a Foreign Language Context (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996), Communication Confidence (Woodrow, 2006; Horwitz et al., 1986), Learner Beliefs (Peng, 2007; Sakui & Gaies, 1999), Classroom Environment (Fraser et al., 1996), International Posture (Yashima, 2002, 2009), Ideal L2 Self (Dörnyei, 2010), OughtTo L2 Self (Dörnyei, 2010), and Integrativeness (Taguchi et al., 2009). Following necessary modifications (e.g., translation into Polish, changing negative items into positive ones, adjusting some items to make them more reflective of the Polish educational setting and typical activities performed in class), the tool consisting of 104 items was used in a pilot study with 79 Polish university students majoring in English and a decision was made to retain all the items (cf. Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2016). However, in a subsequent study, following two rounds of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) involving 107 and 614 participants, all of whom were English majors as well, Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2017) developed a condensed version of the instrument, referred to as the Willingness to Communicate Inventory (WTCI) and it was this version, with minor modifications, that was used for the purpose of the research project (see Appendix F). The tool consists of 55 Likertscale items representing eight factors that were found to underlie WTC. These are as follows: (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

communication confidence, reflecting participants’ self-efficacy beliefs concerning their ability to get messages across in different situations inside and outside the classroom (12 items, e.g., “I know I am able to speak informally to my English teacher during classroom activities;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89); ought-to self , related to the role of external influences in guiding efforts to learn English (9 items, e.g., “Studying English is important to me because an educated person is supposed to be able to speak English;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86); classroom environment, pertaining to the atmosphere during English classes, especially with respect to the role of the teacher as well as the nature of the tasks and activities, and the way in which they are implemented (7 items, e.g., “Class assignments are clear so everyone knows what to do;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73); international posture—openness to experience, reflecting the participants’ readiness to face new challenges, in particular such that involve communication in English with foreigners (9 items, e.g., “I often read and watch news, short films, memes about life/events in foreign countries;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77);

3.5 Data Collection Instruments

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

55

unplanned in-class WTC, related to the readiness to spontaneously contribute to interaction in a range of situations that can arise in English classes (6 items, e.g., “I am willing to ask my peer in English about ideas/arguments related to the topic;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84); international posture—interest in international affairs, related to participants’ desire to extend their knowledge about what is happening in other countries (6 items, e.g., “I have ideas about international issues such as sports, cultural, social, political or economic events or phenomena;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80); practice-seeking WTC, related to participants’ efforts to find opportunities to use English inside and outside the classroom (3 items, e.g., “I am willing to use English to speak to/text my Polish peers out of class;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79); planned in-class WTC, concerning participants’ readiness to make the most of activities and tasks that are intended to hone their speaking skills (3 items, e.g., “I am willing to take part in a discussion in a small group;” Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79).

As was the case with some other tools used in this research project, the items belonging to the eight categories were scattered throughout the inventory. The participants were instructed to indicate their responses on a 6-point scale (1—not at all true about me and 6—extremely true about me). The tool also included a short background section where the students provided their gender, indicated their level in the program and stated the length of their experience in learning English as a foreign language.

3.6 Procedures As explained in Sect. 3.3, the research project was conducted in three universities in Poland but the procedures were largely uniform in all cases. Prior to the commencement of any data collection, the students were informed that participation in the study was voluntary and they were requested to sign consent forms in which they agreed to take part in its different stages. In addition, the overall purpose of the research project was explained to them in general terms so as not to compromise the validity of the collected data. As a form of encouragement and compensation for their efforts, the students received an additional credit in their foreign methodology course. It should also be noted that in light of the need to collate data from different sources to uncover relationships among the constructs under investigation, the students were requested to provide their names when performing the different tasks and completing the questionnaires used for the purpose of this study. Understandably, the data collection procedures differed considerably depending on the nature of the instruments employed. When it comes to the tasks tapping into productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit (highly automatized) knowledge of the English passive as well as those assessing different aspects of

56

3 Methodology of the Research Project

working memory (i.e., PSTM an WMC), the data collection took place in the classroom or in a separate room in the presence of one or more researchers. Among other things, they made sure that the time limit was kept, that participants did not consult each other when completing the tests, that the tasks were performed in the correct order, that the answer sheets were distributed at the right time and collected between tasks, or that the WM tests were conducted appropriately and discontinued when the students failed to meet the required criteria. Also, while three of the measures of L2 knowledge were traditional paper-and-pen tests, students’ performance needed to be audio-recorded on the test of implicit productive knowledge and the WM tests. This was done digitally by means of Dictaphones and required careful orchestration and supervision on the part of the researchers. While the tasks aimed to tap into the mastery of the passive were conducted at one go during one of the regular classes, the situation was more complex for the WM tests since they were administered individually and needed to be carefully scheduled. Things looked different in the case of the questionnaires tapping into beliefs about grammar instruction, grammar learning strategies, motivation and willingness to communicate. Since it would have been unfeasible to ask the participants to respond to almost 200 items in one sitting, some of the instruments were administered during class time, some were sent out via email, and some were made available online. This depended on the ease of access to participants in different levels of the program and in different institutions. While exact conditions of administration might thus have varied to some extent, care was taken to ensure that students could take as much time as they wished to indicate their responses and they were encouraged to ask questions if they were unsure about the meaning of some of the items. Thus, given the rather straightforward nature of the instruments, the differences in terms of the manner of administration are unlikely to have affected the actual results. A comment is in order at this juncture on the fact that at the end of the day it proved to be impossible to collect all the data for all the participants, which made it impossible to come up with a model that could strive to illustrate more intricate relationships among the different ID variables and the different types of the knowledge of the passive. Initially, it was indeed intended to obtain a full data set for each student (e.g., scores on all the tasks and responses to all the inventories), but this ambitious goal failed to be met due to several reasons. First, some of the students did not show up during the administration of the tests and even though several took them later, there were also such who never did. Second, some of the data could not be retrieved due to a technical failure of recording equipment and it was not possible to re-administer the tasks due to logistical constraints or the danger to the integrity of the study (e.g., this was the end of the academic year and students would have had to take the same tasks, which could have triggered the practice effect). Third, there were participants who simply did not return some of the questionnaires, failed to fill them out online, or even sent files that turned out to contain clean versions. Several reminders were sent but little more could be done since participation was voluntary and the fact that the data collection took place in three locations did not help either. All of this is very unfortunate but is also in most cases inevitable in research projects that involve so many participants and are so broad in scope.

3.7 Data Analyses

57

3.7 Data Analyses The data gathered by means of the measures of the productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit (highly automatized) knowledge, the WM tests and the four questionnaires were subjected to quantitative analysis. Some of the analytical procedures were identical for all the research instruments. These comprised transferring the results for all the participants into an Excel file, substituting some of the missing values with averages wherever it was deemed feasible or necessary (cf. Mackey & Gass, 2012), establishing Cronbach’s alpha values for all the instruments, as well as calculating means and standard deviations for the scores on specific tasks and the questionnaires in relation to the scales and subscales that these tools included (e.g., the four main categories of strategies on the GLSI but also the four subcategories of cognitive GLS). Means, standard deviations and sometimes percentages were also computed in the case of factual information elicited by means of the specific questionnaires (e.g., length of study, final course grades, self-evaluation of TL ability, gender, etc.). The procedures differed to some extent across the six studies when it comes to establishing the relationships between the ID variables under investigation and different facets of the mastery of the English passive voice. They are briefly described below with respect to each of the six studies that the research project encompassed. Effects sizes were interpreted following the guidelines proposed by Plonsky and Oswald (2014): • Study 1: Pearson correlations were computed among the six domains of beliefs about grammar instruction and productive and receptive facets of the explicit and implicit (highly automatized) knowledge of the English passive; • Study 2: Multiple linear regression analysis was used to investigate the relationships between GLS and the mastery of the targeted structure; the dependent variables were the scores on the four measures of the mastery of the passive voice (i.e., productive and receptive explicit knowledge, and productive and receptive implicit knowledge); the independent variables were the responses on different parts of the GLSI, the length of experience in learning English, final grades in the grammar course, self-evaluation of English proficiency as well as the perceived importance of grammar in L2 learning; since the grades, the outcomes of selfevaluation and assessments of the importance of grammar represented ordinary scales, they were entered into the regression analysis models as dummy variables, with the intermediate value of 3.0 not being taken into consideration; importantly, two separate analyses were run: one with the four main categories of GLS (i.e., metacognitive, cognitive, affective and social) as dependent variables and the other where the four categories of cognitive GLS (i.e., those for the use of grammar in communicative interaction, the development of explicit and implicit knowledge, and the handling of CF) were included as separate dependent variables as well; • Study 3: although in the study that was originally published (Pawlak & Biedro´n, 2019) only the relationships between the performance on the Polish Listening Span and the scores on the four measures of productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the passive were considered, the pertinent

58

3 Methodology of the Research Project

section in Chap. 4 also reports the results for the remaining WM tests; these results were arrived at by computing Pearson correlations among scores on different tests (i.e., measures of the mastery of the targeted structure and of WM); • Study 4: stepwise regression analysis based on forward selection was employed to determine the influence of the Polish Nonword Span as a measure of PSTM, and the Polish Listening Span as a measure of WMC, alongside overall mastery of English grammar, operationalized as final course grades, on the productive and receptive facets of the explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive; similarly to Study 2, since grades represented an ordinal scale, they were treated as dummy variables and the intermediate value of 3.0 was eliminated; although in the original study (Pawlak & Biedro´n, 2021) the results of correlation analysis were also reported, they are omitted here to avoid partial overlap with Study 3; • Study 5: Pearson correlations were established among the eleven dimensions of motivation included in the inventory and the four measures of the mastery of the targeted structure, that is, the tests gauging the productive and receptive facets of the explicit and implicit knowledge of the passive voice; • Study 6: also in this case correlational analysis was conducted, which consisted in calculating Pearson coefficients among the eight factors underpinning WTC in the Polish context, identified by Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2017), and the four measures of grammar attainment, requiring productive and receptive use of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice.

3.8 Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to present the methodology of the six studies that comprised the research project which was conducted with the purpose of exploring the relationships among selected cognitive and affective ID factors and the mastery of English grammar, operationalized as the productive and receptive use of the English passive voice in terms of explicit and implicit (highly automatized) L2 knowledge. To be more specific, the research questions driving those six studies were formulated, the samples of participants were characterized, the relevant data-collection instruments were described in considerable detail, and the ways in which the data were collected and analyzed were explained. The results of these six studies together with the discussion of these results are provided in Chap. 4.

Chapter 4

Findings of the Research Project

4.1 Introduction The preceding chapters have provided a backdrop to the research project by offering an overview of the relevant theoretical issues and empirical findings regarding the link between ID variables and the knowledge of English grammar as well as the ways in which relationships of this kind were investigated. The aim of the present chapter is to report the results of these studies and also to offer a discussion of such results, which will be further elaborated on in the conclusion. This said, several comments on the organization of the chapter as well as its contents are in order. First, the findings of the six studies are presented in the same order in which they were described in Chap. 3, focusing on interfaces among productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the passive voice and beliefs about grammar instruction (Study 1), grammar learning strategies (Study 2), working memory (Studies 3 and 4), motivation (Study 5), and willingness to communicate (Study 6). Second, the results of Studies 3 and 4 are presented and discussed together since they overlap to a large extent and address the same research question. Third, in each case, the results are immediately followed by a discussion which also includes possible limitations, while a more general discussion is deferred until Chap. 5. Fourth, as elucidated in this chapter, while some of the studies presented here are original (Studies 2, 5 and 6), others have already been published in the form of book chapters or journal papers (Studies 1, 3 and 4). In the latter case, the content presented here is similar to what appeared in the original publications, with the caveat that some new interpretations may be included and the results might be extended in one way or another. Fifth, since the number of participants differed in the six studies, the scores for the mastery of the passive are reported in each case, although the differences were clearly marginal. For this reason, an interpretation of these scores is only provided in the case of Study 1 as it would have had to be identical for the remaining five studies. Sixth, related to the previous point, since many of the limitations are similar for all the studies, they

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8_4

59

60

4 Findings of the Research Project

will be addressed in more detail in Study 1, just hinted at in Studies 2–6, and then revisited in the final, concluding chapter (Chap. 5).

4.2 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction (Study 1) As explained in Chap. 3, the beliefs about grammar instruction were tapped with respect to the overall importance of this subsystem, preferred syllabus type, the design of grammar-based classes, ways in which grammar structures are introduced and practiced, and the correction of grammar errors. It should be emphasized at the outset that the results of this study were published in a book chapter (Pawlak, 2021c) and the contents of the present section are largely based on this publication. Still, some new insights, interpretations and limitations are also included.

4.2.1 Findings While this was not the main focus of the investigation, it makes sense to start the presentation of the findings with a few comments on the overall nature of participants’ beliefs concerning GI as well as their mastery of the English passive voice, the targeted feature in this research project (see Tables 4.1 and 4.2). What is immediately striking is that the students fully recognize the importance of grammar in learning Table 4.1 Means and standard deviations for different categories of beliefs about GI (N = 132) Beliefs about grammar instruction

M (SD)

Overall importance of grammar instruction

4.22 (0.55)

Design of the syllabus

3.92 (0.82)

Planning grammar-oriented lessons

3.85 (0.86)

Introducing grammar structures

3.83 (1.04)

Practicing grammar structures

4.15 (0.96)

Correcting errors in the use of grammar structures

3.78 (0.86)

Table 4.2 Means and standard deviations for the four measures of the mastery of the English passive voice (N = 132) Measures of the mastery of the English passive voice Explicit productive knowledge Explicit receptive knowledge

M (SD) 7.35 (2.62) 10.15 (1.85)

Implicit productive knowledge

5.95 (3.05)

Implicit receptive knowledge

8.72 (1.82)

4.2 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction (Study 1)

61

the target language (M = 4.22) but they also express a propensity for what could be described as more traditional ways of teaching it. This is because the means for the remaining five categories, related to syllabus design, the ways in which grammarbased classes are organized, the introduction of grammar structures, the practice of these structures, and the correction of errors involved in their use all exceeded the value of 3.5. As will be recalled from Sect. 3.5.2 in Chap. 3, the subscales were constructed in such a way that higher means were meant to indicate a focus on forms (cf. Long & Robinson, 1998), where the structural syllabus is followed, the PPP sequence is preferred, with a focus on deduction and controlled exercises, and the provision of CF is expected, especially such that is direct, explicit and immediate. In fact, participants proved to be the most conservative in the case of the preferred ways of practicing grammar structures since the mean was the highest in this case and amounted to 4.15. Importantly, the beliefs were largely uniform and there was little individual variation, which is evident in the SD values which only exceeded 1.00 for the ways in which TL grammar structures should be introduced. When it comes to the mastery of the passive as reflected in the scores on the four tests used for the purpose of the study, participants did best on measures of the ability to comprehend the use of the English passive voice, regardless of whether they tapped into explicit or implicit (automatized) knowledge of this grammar feature (M = 10.15 and M = 8.72, respectively). At the same time, quite unsurprisingly given the cognitive demands of the tasks, the measures of implicit knowledge proved to be much more challenging than those of explicit knowledge, both for production (M = 5.95 and M = 7.35, respectively) and reception (M = 8.72 and M = 10.15, respectively). It is also worth pointing out that individual variation was much more pronounced than in the case of beliefs about GI. Moreover, the SD values indicate that it was greater on the productive rather than receptive measures of the mastery of the English passive. Table 4.3 presents Pearson correlation coefficients reflecting the relationships among the different categories of beliefs and the outcomes of the four tests gauging the productive and receptive facets of the measures of explicit and implicit knowledge. The most conspicuous finding is that beliefs concerning the design of the syllabus and the ways in which grammar-oriented classes are organized are not related to any of the four dimensions of the mastery of the targeted feature. On the other hand, there were a number of correlations that turned out to be statistically significant. With respect to explicit productive knowledge, it correlated positively and strongly with beliefs concerning the overall importance of GI as well as the provision of CF on grammar-related errors (r = 0.71 and r = 0.75, respectively), explaining about 50% and 56% of the observed variance. The scores on this test were also positively, albeit moderately, correlated to beliefs about the introduction of grammar structures (r = 0.68) and the manner in which those structures were typically practiced (r = 0.58), with 46% and 34% of variability being accounted for, respectively. When it comes to performance on the measure of explicit receptive knowledge, it was positively and moderately related to beliefs concerning overall importance of teaching grammar (r = 0.63, ca. 60% of the variance being accounted for), and positively but weakly correlated with those about the introduction of grammar structures (r = 0.36, ca.

62

4 Findings of the Research Project

Table 4.3 Correlations between categories of beliefs about GI and the four measures of the mastery of the passive voice (N = 132) Overall Design Planning Introducing Practicing Correcting importance of the grammar-oriented grammar grammar errors in of GI syllabus lessons structures structures the use of grammar structures Explicit 0.71* productive knowledge

0.21

0.04

0.68*

0.58*

0.75*

Explicit 0.63* receptive knowledge

0.18

0.12

0.36*

0.18

0.44*

Implicit 0.44* productive knowledge

0.12

0.15

-0.32*

0.45*

0.53*

Implicit 0.22 receptive knowledge

0.06

0.03

-0.14

-0.03

0.34*

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

13% of the variability being explained) as well as those about correction of grammar errors (r = 0.44, 19% of the variability explained). Shifting the focus to implicit knowledge of the English passive voice, the scores on the test tapping its productive dimension were positively, moderately related to beliefs concerning the correction of grammar errors (r = 0.53), accounting for about 28% of the variance. In addition, positive, weak correlations were detected in the case of the overall importance of teaching grammar as well as the manner in which grammatical features were practiced (r = 0.44 and r = 0.45,) with 19% and 20% of the variance being explained. Interestingly, participants’ performance on this measure was revealed to be negatively, weakly related to beliefs about how grammar structures are introduced (r = − 0.32, 10% of the variance accounted for). With respect to the scores on the measure of implicit receptive knowledge, only one significant correlation was uncovered. The students’ performance on this test proved to be related to beliefs concerning the correction of grammar errors and this relationship was positive but weak (r = 0.34, about 12% of the variance accounted for).

4.2.2 Discussion Prior to tackling the research question, it is warranted to provide a brief interpretation of participants’ beliefs about grammar instruction that were identified in the present study as well as their mastery of different aspects of the passive, operationalized as productive and receptive dimensions of its explicit and implicit knowledge. In

4.2 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction (Study 1)

63

relation to beliefs about GI, the students manifested awareness of overall importance of grammar in the process of L2 learning but also proved to be to a large extent in favor of traditional approaches to teaching this TL subsystem. To be more precise, the majority of the English majors involved in the study manifested a predilection for successive coverage of grammar structures according to the structural syllabus, class formats based on the PPP, provision of rules by the teacher, exercises allowing controlled practice of the targeted features, as well as direct, immediate correction of errors by the teacher. Although such results should not be interpreted as indicating that participants disregard the importance of the use of grammar structures in communicative interaction, the observed tendencies are quite evident, mirroring to a large extent the findings of previous studies (e.g., Jean & Simard, 2011; Mansouri et al., 2019; Pawlak, 2011a, 2013a; Schulz, 2001). Besides, the observed trends are not overly surprising in the context in which the study was carried out. After all, although grammar may not be accorded adequate weight on the final examinations in high school education, it is routinely taught in English classes at this level, with such instruction typically drawing on the structural syllabus and the PPP. Moreover, students who get enrolled in BA programs in English are somewhat by default required to become familiarized with various intricacies of TL grammar, even such that are unlikely to be needed in everyday communication. The mastery of English grammar also plays a decisive role on the end-of-the-year examinations, not only because it is tested in its own right in separate sections but also because it is crucial in determining the outcomes of oral interviews and written assignments, since specific rubrics are employed to evaluate the mastery of this subsystem. When it comes to the performance on the four measures of the mastery of the passive, it is somewhat surprising that the participants’ scores were the relatively low, oscillating between about 75% on the measure of explicit receptive knowledge and ca. 40% on the test of implicit productive knowledge. This clearly indicates that despite the students’ high assumed proficiency level, there is much that remains to be learnt and then automatized in relation to the knowledge of the English passive voice. This having been said, it is not really surprising that the productive tasks proved to pose much more of a challenge to participants than the receptive tests or that the measures of implicit (automatized) knowledge turned out to be more difficult than those tapping into explicit knowledge. Such findings can be accounted for in terms of the fact that production calls for simultaneous reliance on and coordination of different resources and processes (cf. Kormos, 2006) whereas the performance of complex tasks, particularly those that require real-time processing, inevitably places heavy demands on working memory capacity (Tagarelli et al., 2015; Wright, 2015). Moving on to the primary research question addressed in the present study, that is, the relationships among different categories of beliefs and the mastery of the passive in terms of the productive and receptive dimensions of the explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive, the findings are complex and do not always lend themselves to straightforward interpretations. The least unexpected perhaps is the fact that participants’ performance on three out of the four tests of the mastery of the passive, with the exception of the measure of implicit receptive knowledge, was positively correlated with their beliefs about the overall significance of GI, with

64

4 Findings of the Research Project

this relationship being the most pronounced in the case of productive and receptive explicit knowledge. If we consider the nature of the BA program that the students pursue, it is certainly logical that positive beliefs in this domain should be positively associated with grammar achievement, whether this achievement is operationalized very broadly (e.g., a score on the component dedicated to grammar on the end-ofthe-year examination) or very narrowly (i.e., the mastery of a specific feature or a set of such features). Much in the same vein, it should come as no surprise that positive beliefs about the provision of CF on grammar errors proved to be positively related to scores on all measures of L2 knowledge. It should be emphasized, however, that this link was the most consistent and, in many cases, also the strongest for explicit, immediate, teacher correction. The most likely explanation of this trend could be that error correction in different areas is the type of pedagogical intervention that English majors are accustomed to since it frequently occurs both during grammar classes, whether in controlled or more communicative practice, and in other components of the English course, be it during communicative interactions in speaking classes or when grading essays in writing classes. Importantly, CF that takes place beyond grammar classes is by no means confined to largely implicit recasts and prompts or a handful of comments provided on completion of communicative tasks (cf. Ellis, 2017b; Pawlak, 2014). One more observation with respect to error correction is that correlations were on the whole stronger in the case of productive measures of explicit and implicit knowledge, which is in all likelihood the corollary of the fact that different CF options can only be applied when learners generate output, irrespective of the nature of the speaking activity performed. In light of the fact that participants manifested a clear preference for deduction and controlled practice, it was largely predictable that the beliefs in these areas should be positively related to the scores on both measures on explicit knowledge of the passive. At the same time, it is also not surprising that the correlation should hold for both production and reception in the case of the beliefs about the introduction of grammar structures but only for production when it comes to the subsequent practice of these structures. This can be attributed to the fact that while getting familiarized with a specific rule involves reliance on both modalities, the bulk of practice activities utilized in the grammar course mainly entail production rather than sheer understanding the formmeaning mappings, as VanPatten (2003) postulates in his input processing theory. In this connection, the occurrence of the negative, weak link between beliefs about how TL grammar structures should be introduced and the scores on the test of implicit productive knowledge is understandable because any kind of communicative practice is highly unlikely to take place in such situations. There are also some results that do not enable straightforward interpretations. For one thing, beliefs about practicing grammar structures, which favored a traditional approach were positively, even if weakly, related to performance on the measure of implicit productive knowledge. This might indicate that the practice activities that are actually used in grammar classes are not always controlled. It could also suggest that participants, possibly due to their prior experiences, simply find it difficult to tell the difference between the nature of various activities, being convinced that all of them serve the purpose of helping them get to know and use the targeted structures. Support

4.2 Beliefs About Grammar Instruction (Study 1)

65

for the latter assumption comes from the fact that, when asked to conduct microteaching in L2 methodology classes, many students simply do not really understand the reason why they should strike a balance between controlled and communicative activities if they choose to teach grammar. A question also arises why the beliefs about the choice of the syllabus or the design of grammar-oriented classes proved to be unrelated to grammar attainment in terms of the English passive. One plausible explanation is that, while participants were by and large in favor of more traditional instructional options, the decisions teachers make with respect to these two areas do not ultimately have a bearing on grammar achievement for the simple reason that it is the actual tasks that students engage in that drive the development of explicit and implicit knowledge. One more issue that deserves to be addressed is the fact that, on the whole, different categories of participants’ beliefs about GI turned out to be more positively and more strongly correlated to performance on measures of explicit rather than implicit knowledge. This state of affairs could perhaps be attributed to the overall more traditional orientation exhibited by the students who apparently opted for explicit types of instruction typical of a focus on forms (Long & Robinson, 1998), which allow them to first familiarize themselves with rules and fall back on those rules when needed. The present study suffers from several limitations. First, an argument could be made that it might be unwarranted to investigate relationships between overall beliefs about different aspects of GI and the productive and receptive facets of explicit and implicit knowledge of a specific TL feature, the English passive voice. One valid reason for this reservation is that what students believe in general about, for example, syllabus design or the introduction and practice of grammar structures, does not have to apply to the targeted feature. After all, L2 grammar comprises a wide range of different features and views about how they should best be taught might vary depending on their nature, perceived difficulty and so on. While this is surely an important issue, a focus on a particular structure was necessitated by the overall design of the research project which, in turn, was connected with the difficulty in obtaining a valid and reliable picture of participants’ overall mastery of English grammar (see Sect. 1.5 in Chap. 1). Besides, scores on the four measures indicate that the choice of the passive as the targeted structure was justified and we should also not lose sight of the fact that accurate, meaningful and appropriate use of this TL feature is contingent on accurate, meaningful and appropriate employment of a range of other structures as well (e.g., tenses, aspects, modals, verb forms). Thus, it could be argued that the measures of explicit and implicit knowledge yielded insights into many more aspects of English grammar than just the passive. Second, the study only relied on quantitative data, which considerably limits the insights into the links between beliefs about GI and performance with respect to the English passive that could be obtained. Surely, the inclusion of interviews or immediate reports of some kind following the completion of the four tasks could have shed valuable light on such relationships. Third, some problems were revealed concerning internal reliability consistency of some of the tools, mainly the measures of implicit receptive knowledge. This could reasonably be blamed for the failure to detect meaningful relationships between scores on this test and most of the categories of beliefs. Fourth, it could be argued

66

4 Findings of the Research Project

that some of the measures of the mastery of the passive may not have elicited the kind of knowledge of this feature for which they were developed. The most problematic perhaps in this respect was the test of implicit productive knowledge which may have allowed excessive reliance on prefabricated patterns in which the passive was used (Larsen-Freeman & DeCarrico, 2020) rather than relevant rules underlying such use. In addition, a possibility cannot be excluded that at least some of the students may have been able to draw on explicit rules during the performance of this task. Beyond doubt, learners’ beliefs have the potential to affect different aspects of how L2 learning proceeds and to considerably impact the level of attainment in different areas, with the learning of L2 grammar surely not being an exception (cf. Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). It is thus surprising that the empirical evidence concerning the link between different categories of beliefs about GI and grammar achievement is extremely scarce (see Sect. 2.3 in Chap. 2). Despite undeniable weaknesses, the present investigation has provided valuable insights into relationships among beliefs concerning different domains of GI and the productive and receptive facets of the explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice. Although some of the results are complex and not always easy to explain, a number of significant, positive, strong, moderate and weak relationships were detected, which should surely give food for thought for those in charge of organizing intensive English courses for English majors, in particular in relation to their grammar component. One important issue is raising students’ awareness of the importance of using L2 grammar structures in communicative interaction, as this will affect not only the way they approach grammar learning themselves but also the manner in which they will teach this subsystem if they become teachers. More research is needed on the link between beliefs about GI and grammar attainment because the effectiveness of instructional options applied in the classroom is bound to be mitigated by what learners think in relation to the soundness, utility and effectiveness of these options. Such research could focus on specific structures, as was the case in this study, or take into account overall mastery of TL grammar if it can be gauged in a valid and reliable way. Armed with the outcomes of such studies, ideally combining quantitative and qualitative data, we can hope to improve upon the way we teach L2 grammar, not only in English but in a range of other additional languages as well.

4.3 Grammar Learning Strategies (Study 2) As will be recalled from this chapter, the reported use of grammar learning strategies was tapped by means of GLSI, where these strategic devices are grouped into four categories, that is, metacognitive, cognitive, affective and social GLS. The cognitive category, which encompasses strategies which are directly involved in learning and using grammar is further subdivided into four types of GLS that are employed to aid the production and comprehension of grammar in communicative interaction, to develop explicit knowledge, to develop implicit knowledge, and to make the most of corrective feedback on grammar-related errors. Multiple linear regression was run,

4.3 Grammar Learning Strategies (Study 2)

67

where four measures of the mastery of the passive served as dependent variables, whereas different categories of GLS, the length of experience in learning English, self-evaluation of TL proficiency, the final grades in the grammar course and the perceived importance of grammar constituted independent variables. Two sets of models were built, the first that included the four main categories of GLS and the second that also comprised the four subcategories of cognitive GLS.

4.3.1 Findings Tables 4.4 and 4.5 include the descriptive statistics for reported use of GLS and the scores on tests of the productive and receptive dimensions of the explicit and implicit knowledge of the passive voice, respectively. Since, as mentioned above, the performance on the four measures of L2 knowledge was by and large similar across the six studies, the focus here is solely on the former issue, that is, the employment of strategies for learning and using L2 grammar. Yet again, while this is not the main thrust of this investigation, it is of crucial importance to see which categories of GLS participants reported using the most often as this can assist the explanation of the results of regression analyses. The interpretation of the results is based on the guidelines proposed by Oxford (1990), with the mean bands of 5.0–3.5, 3.4–2.5, and 2.4–1.0, representing high, medium and low use, respectively. When we examine the Table 4.4 Means and standard deviations for different categories of GLS (N = 193) Grammar learning strategies

M (SD)

Metacognitive GLS (A)

3.53 (0.61)

Cognitive GLS (B)

3.61 (0.48)

GLS used in communicative tasks (B1)

3.84 (0.53)

GLS used to develop explicit knowledge (B2)

3.28 (0.50)

GLS used to develop implicit knowledge (B3)

3.36 (0.66)

GLS used to deal with corrective feedback (B4)

3.98 (0.60)

Affective GLS (C)

3.04 (0.58)

Social GLS (D)

3.61 (0.74)

Table 4.5 Means and standard deviations for the four measures of the mastery of the English passive voice (N = 193) Measures of the mastery of the English passive voice Explicit productive knowledge Explicit receptive knowledge

M (SD) 7.22 (2.75) 10.11 (1.92)

Implicit productive knowledge

5.87 (2.95)

Implicit receptive knowledge

8.53 (1.83)

68

4 Findings of the Research Project

data in Table 4.5, it immediately becomes clear that reported frequency of GLS can be interpreted as high for all the categories, with the exception of the cognitive GLS employed to drive the development of explicit and implicit knowledge (M = 3.28 and M = 3.36, respectively) as well as affective GLS (M = 3.04), as in all of these three cases the frequency of use was medium. The categories of GLS that proved to be deployed the most frequently were GLS used to deal with CF (M = 3.98) and GLS applied to aid the production and comprehension of grammar structures in communication (M = 3.84). In comparison, somewhat less frequent reliance on the entire category of cognitive as well as social GLS (M = 3.61 in both cases) was reported. Noteworthy is the fact that there was relatively little individual variation in GLS use, as evident in the SD values which oscillate between 0.50 and 0.66, only exceeding 0.7 for social GLS (SD = 0.74). Moving on to the outcomes of multiple linear regression analyses, Tables 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 present models that included four main categories comprised in the GLSI (i.e., metacognitive, cognitive, affective and social GLS), alongside experience in learning English, self-evaluation, final grades in the grammar course and importance of grammar in L2 learning. Careful inspection of the data allows several important observations. First, the predictor variables in the Models 1–4 explain from 34% (explicit productive knowledge) to merely 9% (implicit receptive knowledge) of the variance on the measures of the mastery of the targeted structure. Second, the constellation of the independent variables account for a greater proportion of variability on the tests of productive knowledge, whether explicit or implicit (34% and 22%, respectively), rather that explicit and implicit receptive knowledge (13% Table 4.6 Multiple linear regression analysis with explicit productive knowledge as dependent variable and four main categories of GLS (N = 193) Model 1: Explicit productive knowledge R = 0.63; R2 = 0.40; adjusted R2 = 0.34 F(11,121) = 7.22; p < 0.0001; Standard error of the estimate: 2.17 Independent variables

B

Metacognitive GLS (A)

Std. error

t

p

− 0.04

0.07

− 0.59

Cognitive GLS (B)

0.02

0.01

1.77

Affective GLS (C)

− 0.21

0.06

− 3.86

0.000*

Social GLS (D)

− 0.01

0.06

− 0.08

0.934

0.11

0.07

1.52

0.132

Self-evaluation_4

− 0.02

0.60

− 0.03

0.978

Self-evaluation_5

1.60

0.73

2.20

Grade_4

1.01

0.57

1.76

0.081

Grade_5

2.41

0.67

3.581

0.000*

Importance_4

− 1.45

0.58

− 2.51

0.014*

Importance_5

− 0.63

0.61

− 1.04

0.303

Length

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

0.555 0.079

0.030*

4.3 Grammar Learning Strategies (Study 2)

69

Table 4.7 Multiple linear regression analysis with explicit receptive knowledge as dependent variable and four main categories of GLS (N = 193) Model 2: Explicit receptive knowledge R = 0.45; R2 = 0.20; adjusted R2 = 0.13 F(11,121) = 2.218; p = 0.004; Standard error of the estimate: 1.82 Independent variables

B

Std. error

t

p

Metacognitive GLS (A)

0.01

0.06

0.20

0.842

Cognitive GLS (B)

0.01

0.01

0.41

0.681

Affective GLS (C)

− 0.11

0.05

− 2.28

Social GLS (D)

0.00

0.05

0.07

0.944

Length

0.05

0.06

0.84

0.403

Self-evaluation_4

− 0.14

0.50

− 0.27

0.786

Self-evaluation_5

0.40

0.61

0.65

0.514

Grade_4

0.92

0.48

1.92

0.057

Grade_5

0.025*

1.53

0.56

2.73

Importance_4

− 0.46

0.48

− 0.95

0.342

0.007*

Importance_5

0.12

0.51

0.23

0.816

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05 Table 4.8 Multiple linear regression analysis with implicit productive knowledge as dependent variable and four main categories of GLS (N = 193) Model 3: Implicit productive knowledge R = 0.54; R2 = 0.29; adjusted R2 = 0.22 F(11,121) = 4.41; p < 0.0001; Standard error of the estimate: 2.56 Independent variables

B

Metacognitive GLS (A)

Std. error

t

p

− 0.04

0.08

− 0.54

Cognitive GLS (B)

0.04

0.02

2.57

0.011*

Affective GLS (C)

− 0.22

0.07

− 3.38

0.001*

0.05

0.07

0.62

0.535

− 0.10

0.09

− 1.21

0.228

Self-evaluation_4

0.51

0.71

0.73

0.470

Self-evaluation_5

2.54

0.85

2.97

0.004*

− 0.62

0.67

− 0.92

Social GLS (D) Length

Grade_4 Grade_5

0.590

0.359

0.54

0.79

0.68

Importance_4

− 1.42

0.68

− 2.09

0.039*

Importance_5

− 0.92

0.72

− 1.28

0.204

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

0.500

70

4 Findings of the Research Project

Table 4.9 Multiple linear regression analysis with implicit receptive knowledge as dependent variable and four main categories of GLS (N = 193) Model 4: Implicit receptive knowledge R = 0.41; R2 = 0.17; adjusted R2 = 0.09 F(11,121) = 2.25; p = 0.016; Standard error of the estimate: 1.81 Independent variables

B

Std. error

t

p

Metacognitive GLS (A)

0.03

0.06

0.50

0.619

Cognitive GLS (B)

0.02

0.01

1.82

0.071

Affective GLS (C)

− 0.13

0.05

− 2.89

0.005*

Social GLS (D)

− 0.05

0.05

− 0.92

0.362

0.09

0.06

1.52

0.131

Self-evaluation_4

− 0.26

0.50

− 0.53

0.598

Self-evaluation_5

− 0.25

0.60

− 0.41

0.681

Grade_4

− 0.49

0.48

− 1.03

0.304

Length

Grade_5

0.26

0.56

0.47

0.640

Importance_4

0.27

0.48

0.57

0.573

Importance_5

0.48

0.51

0.95

0.347

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

and 9%, respectively). Third, the contribution of GLS to performance on all four measures of the mastery of the English passive voice was either non-existent or marginal. To be more specific, a positive but miniscule impact of cognitive GLS was revealed in the case of implicit productive knowledge (B = 0.04). A little more consistent pattern emerged in the case of affective GLS which had a negative, somewhat more pronounced influence on performance on all the tests of the passive, with this influence being the most visible on measures of production (B = − 0.21 for explicit knowledge and B = − 0.22 for implicit knowledge). Fourth, it was other variables than GLS use that turned out to be more powerful predictors of scores on the tests of L2. This applies in particular to the outcomes of self-evaluation and grades in the grammar course. On the whole, scores on the productive and receptive tests of explicit knowledge tended to increase together with highest grades (B = 2.41 and B = 1.53 for Grade_5, respectively), while highest levels of self-evaluation also predicted performance for productive explicit and implicit knowledge (B = 1.60 and B = − 2.54, respectively for Self-evaluation_5). Interestingly, relatively positive perceptions of the importance of grammar (B = − 1.45 for Importance_4) had a negative impact on the performance on the measure of explicit productive knowledge. Fifth, experience in learning English played a marginal role in all of the models. Tables 4.10, 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 present the results of multiple linear regression for models that included four specific subtypes of cognitive GLS rather than the entire category, taking account of the length of experience in learning English, participants’ self-evaluation, the final grades in the grammar course, and perceived importance

4.3 Grammar Learning Strategies (Study 2)

71

Table 4.10 Multiple linear regression analysis with explicit productive knowledge as dependent variable and the four subcategories of cognitive GLS (N = 193)

Model 5: Explicit productive knowledge R = 0.64; R2 = 0.41; adjusted R2 = 0.34 F(14,118) = 5.88; p < 0.0001; Standard error of the estimate: 2.17 Independent variables B Std. error Metacognitive GLS (A) − 0.04 0.07 Cognitive GLS (B1) 0.10 0.06 Cognitive GLS (B2) 0.02 0.02 Cognitive GLS (B3) − 0.03 0.05 Cognitive GLS (B4) 0.04 0.08 Affective GLS (C) − 0.20 0.06 Social GLS (D) − 0.01 0.06 Length 0.10 0.07 Self-evaluation_4 − 0.19 0.62 Self-evaluation_5 1.31 0.76 Grade_4 1.11 0.58 Grade_5 2.39 0.67 Importance_4 − 1.32 0.59 Importance_5 -0.60 0.61

t − 0.65 1.77 0.89 − 0.56 0.48 − 3.44 − 0.21 1.34 − 0.31 1.73 1.93 3.55 − 2.25 -0.99

p 0.514 0.079 0.377 0.574 0.629 0.001* 0.837 0.184 0.755 0.087 0.056 0.001* 0.027* 0.326

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05 Table 4.11 Multiple linear regression analysis with explicit receptive knowledge as dependent variable and the four subcategories of cognitive GLS (N = 193)

Model 6: Explicit receptive knowledge R = 0.47; R2 = 0.23; adjusted R2 = 0.13 F(14,118) = 2.44; p = 0.005; Standard error of the estimate: 1.81 Independent variables B Std. error Metacognitive GLS (A) − 0.01 0.06 Cognitive GLS (B1) 0.07 0.05 Cognitive GLS (B2) − 0.02 0.02 Cognitive GLS (B3) 0.01 0.04 Cognitive GLS (B4) 0.01 0.06 Affective GLS (C) − 0.08 0.05 Social GLS (D) − 0.01 0.05 Length 0.04 0.06 Self-evaluation_4 − 0.35 0.51 Self-evaluation_5 0.06 0.63 Grade_4 1.02 0.48 Grade_5 1.48 0.56 Importance_4 − 0.33 0.49 Importance_5 0.11 0.51 Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

t − 0.01 1.57 − 1.03 0.32 0.22 − 1.72 − 0.09 0.65 − 0.67 0.09 2.13 2.64 − 0.68 0.21

p 0.993 0.119 0.307 0.748 0.825 0.088 0.931 0.515 0.503 0.931 0.035* 0.009* 0.495 0.835

72

4 Findings of the Research Project

Table 4.12 Multiple linear regression analysis with implicit productive knowledge as dependent variable and the four subcategories of cognitive GLS (N = 193) Model 7: Implicit productive knowledge R = 0.55; R2 = 0.30; adjusted R2 = 0.22 F(14,118) = 3.65; p < 0.0001; Standard error of the estimate: 2.56 Independent variables

B

Metacognitive GLS (A) Cognitive GLS (B1)

Std. error

t

p

− 0.05

0.08

− 0.61

0.546

0.13

0.07

1.92

0.058

Cognitive GLS (B2)

0.04

0.03

1.30

0.197

Cognitive GLS (B3)

− 0.02

0.06

− 0.28

0.783

Cognitive GLS (B4)

0.06

0.09

0.63

0.530

− 0.20

0.07

− 2.97

0.04

0.08

0.48

0.630

− 0.12

0.09

− 1.32

0.188

Self-evaluation_4

0.31

0.73

0.42

0.674

Self-evaluation_5

2.20

0.89

2.47

0.015*

− 0.50

0.68

− 0.74

Affective GLS (C) Social GLS (D) Length

Grade_4 Grade_5

0.004*

0.463

0.52

0.79

0.65

0.516

Importance_4

− 1.27

0.69

− 1.83

0.069

Importance_5

− 0.89

0.72

− 1.23

0.220

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

of grammar. Perhaps not surprisingly, observations stemming from close inspection of the data are similar, if not identical, to those deriving from the model in which cognitive GLS were included as a monolithic category, with the caveat that they are slightly more nuanced in some cases. First, independent variables entered into Models 5–8 accounted for between 34% (explicit productive knowledge) and 10% (implicit receptive knowledge) of the variance in performance on the tests of the English passive voice, which basically mirrors the situation for Models 1–4. Second, as was the case with Models 1–4, the combination of the independent variables predicted more variability on measures of productive explicit and implicit knowledge (34% and 22%, respectively) than those of receptive explicit and implicit knowledge (13% and 10%, respectively). Third, the role of GLS was on the whole negligible or at best marginal. Once again, the most evident was the negative impact on performance of affective GLS, particularly in the case of measures or productive explicit and implicit knowledge (B = − 0.20 in both cases). Of all the other categories of GLS, cognitive strategies used to aid production and comprehension of grammar in spontaneous interactions turned out to be a weak predictor of implicit productive knowledge (B = 0.13). Fourth, the impact of the remaining variables was almost the same as in Models 1–4, with highest grades in the grammar course being important predictors of scores on measures of productive and receptive explicit knowledge (B = 2.39 and B = 1.48 for Grade_5, respectively). However, very positive self-evaluation of TL

4.3 Grammar Learning Strategies (Study 2)

73

Table 4.13 Multiple linear regression analysis with implicit receptive knowledge as dependent variable and the four subcategories of cognitive GLS (N = 193) Model 8: Implicit receptive knowledge R = 0.44; R2 = 0.19; adjusted R2 = 0.10 F(14,118) = 2.02; p = 0.021; Standard error of the estimate: 1.80 Independent variables

B

Std. error

t

p

Metacognitive GLS (A)

0.01

0.06

0.22

0.824

Cognitive GLS (B1)

0.09

0.05

2.00

0.048*

Cognitive GLS (B2)

− 0.00

0.02

− 0.18

Cognitive GLS (B3)

0.05

0.04

1.05

0.297

Cognitive GLS (B4)

− 0.02

0.06

− 0.38

0.703

Affective GLS (C)

− 0.11

0.05

− 2.40

0.018*

Social GLS (D)

− 0.05

0.05

− 0.87

0.384

0.09

0.06

1.52

0.131

Self-evaluation_4

− 0.48

0.51

− 0.93

0.353

Self-evaluation_5

− 0.58

0.63

− 0.92

0.362

Grade_4

− 0.41

0.48

− 0.86

0.394

Length

0.857

Grade_5

0.25

0.56

0.45

0.655

Importance_4

0.32

0.49

0.65

0.515

Importance_5

0.47

0.51

0.93

0.355

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

ability in this case only proved to be a quite strong predictor of implicit productive knowledge (B = 2.20). Similarly to Models 1–4, relatively positive perceptions of the role of grammar in L2 learning (B = − 1.32 for Importance_4) were found to negatively affect performance on the test of explicit productive knowledge. Marginal effect was observed for length of experience in learning English.

4.3.2 Discussion Before addressing the main research question posed for this study concerning the predictive effects on productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice of GLS use, length of study, final grades, self-evaluation, and perceived importance of grammar, it is warranted to briefly comment on patterns of grammar strategy use reported by participants. As shown above, the most frequently used GLS included those employed to deal with CF on grammar errors as well as those aiding the production and comprehension of grammar features in communicative tasks. Metacognitive, cognitive and social GLS were also employed with high frequency while the frequency of GLS aiding the development of explicit and implicit knowledge as well as affective GLS was medium, with strategic

74

4 Findings of the Research Project

devices in the last category being applied the least often (M = 3.04). These findings are consistent with the results of recent studies in which the GLSI was employed (e.g., Pawlak, 2019c) but they do not entirely mirror outcomes of earlier investigations (e.g., Pawlak, 2008, 2012b) conducted with similar samples, which provided evidence for heavy reliance on traditional cognitive GLS, working with rules or engaging in predominantly formal practice. This might indicate a gradual change in the approach to learning L2 grammar, which could be reflective of the limited weight accorded to this subsystem on final examinations in secondary school but also lower proficiency levels of students in English departments. More generally, the reported GLS use needs to be interpreted within the context in which the study was conducted. On the one hand, given the relatively high proficiency level of participants, it is hardly surprising that strategies optimizing the use of grammar structures in communicative interactions as well as those helping the processing of CF in different situations should hold the pride of place. It could also be expected that students, who benefit from courses in methodology and are cognizant of what the process of L2 learning entails, would frequently fall back on strategic devices involved in planning, monitoring and self-evaluating learning grammar or such that call for interactions with their instructors and peers. The relatively infrequent reliance on affective GLS was also predicable since it is consistent with the results of previous research (e.g., Pawlak, 2008, 2012b, 2019c) and, much more importantly, the role of such strategies in L2 classrooms is bound to remain limited for a number of reasons (Pawlak, 2019b). More difficult to interpret is the finding that GLS used for the development of both explicit and implicit knowledge were employed only with medium frequency. When we consider the fact that such categories include strategic devices helping better understand and remember rules through deduction and induction as well as such that assist more effective practice, whether controlled or communicative, an apparent gap emerges between the espoused beliefs about GI (see Study 1) and the extent and nature of strategic learning. This could be explained in two ways. For one thing, such results could indicate that although participants emphasize more traditional ways of learning grammar, they are not always familiar with most beneficial ways of approaching this task, something that might need to be addressed by adept instruction in GLS use (cf. Pawlak, 2019d). Alternatively, the choice of GLS could also be conditioned by the nature of the targeted structure. After all, the students at this level are familiar with the passive and often employ at least its more basic variants, with the effect that they might set more store by its propitious use in communicative interaction and capitalizing on the CF they receive rather than efforts to further understand rules or practice the feature in deliberate ways. Even more challenging to explain and interpret are the results of multiple linear regression analyses aimed to determine the predictive effect of GLS as well as several other variables on participants’ performance on productive and receptive measures of explicit and implicit knowledge of the passive. While two sets of models were taken into consideration, one where cognitive GLS were entered as a uniform category and the other in which four subcategories of cognitive GLS were included, the results were almost identical, even if somewhat finer-grained in the latter case. On the whole, the

4.3 Grammar Learning Strategies (Study 2)

75

proposed models better explained variance in performance on the productive rather than receptive measures of explicit and implicit knowledge, which might imply that understanding form-meaning mappings in the case of the passive may be dependent on a different set of predictors from those entered into the models or that tests of receptive knowledge were somehow problematic, a possibility that certainly cannot be discounted. It was certainly unexpected that most of the categories of GLS played no role in performance on the four measures of the mastery of the targeted structure or this role was almost negligible. Specifically, the category of cognitive GLS as a whole was a very weak predictor of implicit productive knowledge whereas its subcategory of strategies for using grammar in communication had an almost equally weak effect on implicit productive knowledge. Given the marginal role of such GLS in respective models, it is hardly possible to offer a plausible explanation for such results other than that, given that participants were familiar with the way the passive is formed and used, adept employment of certain cognitive GLS was more relevant for their performance in terms of implicit rather than explicit knowledge. On the other hand, clearly intriguing is the negative, although yet again admittedly limited, effect of affective GLS, especially in the case of tests requiring production based on both explicit and implicit knowledge. One possibility could be that excessive focus on affective concerns might be detrimental, perhaps taking students’ attention away from the task in hand and thus hindering successful performance (cf. Pawlak, 2019b). On the whole, the marginal contribution of GLS to grammar attainment is not overly surprising in light of the results of the handful of the relevant studies (e.g., Tilfarlio˘glu, 2005), although Pawlak (2009) did report a link between final course grades and GLS involved in explicit deductive learning. However, this relationship was still very weak and the mastery of grammar was operationalized generally rather than with respect to a specific structure. In regard to the present investigation, it could be assumed that the predictive effects of GLS use were so small because of the nature of the targeted feature and participants’ familiarity with it. Perhaps they could have been more pronounced if a different structure had been taken into account. What surely provides food for thought is that the effects of GLS were trumped by attainment in the form of final grades in the grammar course but also overall TL ability, established on the basis of students’ self-evaluations. The former proved to be crucial in the case of both measures of explicit L2 knowledge, which is logical given the fact that grammar classes mainly focus on the introduction of rules and their subsequent practice in controlled exercises. The latter also had a powerful effect on implicit productive knowledge, which is not surprising because the use of grammar structures under time pressure requires coordination of different TL skills and subsystems. It is surely puzzling that quite positive perceptions concerning the role of grammar should have a negative impact on production in terms of both explicit and implicit knowledge. The study is not free from some limitations. Some of them are inherent in the design of the research project in its entirety and they were considered at some length in the discussion of the findings of Study 1. Such weaknesses are related to reliance on solely quantitative data, questionable reliability of the measures of receptive L2

76

4 Findings of the Research Project

knowledge as well as the fact that the task intended to tap into the productive implicit knowledge might have enabled excessive reliance on multi-word units and did not entirely preclude conscious application of rules. In addition, the study adopted a rather static view of learning strategies that were assigned to distinct categories, even though there is evidence that the functions of strategies fluctuate according to the demands of the task (e.g., Cohen & Wang, 2018; Oxford, 2017), with GLS surely being no exception. This brings us to another problem which is the fact that GLS use was investigated only from a macro-perspective rather than with respect to the tasks that participants were instructed to perform to establish the mastery of the passive. Such a situated, micro-perspective could have surely produced a more nuanced and sharper picture of how GLS can affect performance (Pawlak, 2020c). Even though these points are undoubtedly valid, such issues were beyond the scope of this study which sought to pinpoint more general patterns. On the one hand, the results can be seen as disappointing in the sense that the present study failed to identify a significant role of GLS in grammar attainment in terms of the use of the passive on productive and receptive measures of explicit and implicit knowledge. Moreover, strategy use turned out to be superseded by proficiency, both with respect to mastery of grammar (i.e., course grades) and overall TL ability (i.e., self-evaluation scores). On the other hand, these findings should by no means dissuade us from undertaking more studies that would investigate the link between the employment of GLS and grammar attainment, however it might be operationalized. In light of the fact that in particular the use of grammar structures in communicative interaction is bound to pose a challenge for most students, including English majors, and this problem can hardly be remedied by the tasks and activities employed in the classroom, learners can surely benefit from adept use of GLS. Besides, strategic learning plays a key role in the development of autonomy in learning grammar (cf. Pawlak, 2016). In fact, the marginal role of GLS observed in this study might not necessarily constitute evidence that such strategies are of little value but also that participants are not familiar with them or cannot draw on them in an appropriate manner. In addition, even if GLS use does little to help proper use of the passive, this does not have to mean that they cannot contribute to better understanding and use of a wide range of other grammar structures, such that are objectively more challenging but also problematic in the eyes of learners. Such issues can only be determined by further empirical investigations that would focus on other structures, trace the links between GLS and grammar attainment from both a macroand micro-perspective, and adeptly combine quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The accrued empirical evidence will undoubtedly contribute to developing efficacious pedagogical interventions focused on GLS that students are likely to find the most useful.

4.4 Working Memory (Studies 3 and 4)

77

4.4 Working Memory (Studies 3 and 4) The results of Studies 3 and 4 are presented together as they jointly address the issue of relationships among two components of working memory, that is, PSTM and WMC, and measures of the productive and receptive facets of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive, with the latter also taking into consideration TL grammar attainment in terms of grades in the grammar course. As explained in the previous chapter, PSTM was tapped by means of the Polish adaptation of digit span (Brzezi´nski et al., 1996) and the Polish Nonword Span (Zychowicz et al., 2018), whereas WMC was measured through the Polish Nonword Span (Biedro´n & Szczepaniak, 2012) and the Polish Listening Span (Zychowicz et al., 2017). One important caveat is in order at this juncture. Although Studies 3 and 4 have already been published in the form of journal papers (Pawlak & Biedro´n, 2019, 2021) and the following sections largely draw on those publications, two crucial changes were introduced to enrich the data and to avoid inevitable overlaps. First, correlational analyses in Study 3 are augmented by inclusion of relationships that were not considered by Pawlak and Biedro´n (2019). In this case, the number of participants differs in various analyses due to unavailability of the data. Second, in the case of Study 4, the results of correlational analyses are omitted and only regression analyses are reported.

4.4.1 Findings Tables 4.14 and 4.15 present means and standard deviations on the two tests of PSTM and two tests of WMC as well as measures of the productive and receptive dimensions of the English passive. As was explained earlier, detailed presentation of the scores on the four measures of the passive voice is not undertaken because they are almost identical to those presented in Study 1. When it comes to the tests of PSTM, the mean score of 12.89 on digit span can be considered as average as it represents ca. 54% of the maximum score (24 points, Brzezi´nski et al., 1996). With respect to performance on the Polish Nonword Span, the mean of 74.09 is considerably lower than the value of 92.33 reported in the pilot study conducted by Zychowicz et al. (2018). Moving Table 4.14 Means and standard deviations on the tests tapping PSTM and WMC (N = 156–194) Tests of working memory

M (SD)

PSTM Digit span (N = 187)

12.89 (3.23)

Polish non word span (N = 186)

74.09 (16.66)

WMC Polish Reading Span (187)

24.41 (6.38)

Polish Listening Span (N = 156)

28.79 (5.32)

78

4 Findings of the Research Project

Table 4.15 Means and standard deviations for the four measures of the mastery of the English passive voice (N = 156–194) Measures of the mastery of the English passive voice

M (SD)

Explicit productive knowledge (N = 193)

7.20 (2.74)

Explicit receptive knowledge (N = 194)

10.11 (1.91)

Implicit productive knowledge (N = 167)

5.92 (2.95)

Implicit receptive knowledge (N = 194)

8.54 (1.83)

on to the measures of WMC, the mean score on the Polish Reading Span amounted to 24.41, which stands for ca. 47% of the maximum score (52 points) and is lower than the value of 27.76 reported by Biedro´n and Szczepaniak (2012) for mainstream philology students. Finally, the mean of 28.79 on the Polish Listening Span can be seen as high since it constitutes ca. 71% of the maximum score (41 points). It is to a large extent comparable to the average score (M = 26.52) obtained in the pilot study by Zychowicz et al. (2017). What should be highlighted are relatively high SD values on all tests, which indicates that WM in the investigated samples is subject to considerable individual variation. When we examine the Pearson correlation coefficients included in Table 4.16, it immediately becomes clear that while all of the observed relationships are positive and some of them reach significance, the effect sizes are small (Plonsky & Oswald, 2014), with a maximum of merely about 7% of the variability being accounted for. Most of the significant correlations were detected between the scores on the measure of explicit productive knowledge of the passive voice and the PLSPAN (r = 0.26), PNWSPAN (r = 0.17) and digit span (r = 0.16). A significant relationship was also revealed between the measure of receptive explicit knowledge and the PLSPAN (r = 0.17). What is particularly intriguing, no significant correlations were found between Table 4.16 Correlations between four WM tests and four measures of the mastery of the passive (N = 156–194) Digit span

Polish nonword span

Polish reading span

Polish listening span

Explicit productive knowledge

0.16*

0.17*

0.14

0.26*

Explicit receptive knowledge

0.08

0.12

0.11

0.17*

Implicit productive knowledge

0.09

0.15

0.14

0.09

Implicit receptive knowledge

0.04

0.09

0.19

0.15

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

4.4 Working Memory (Studies 3 and 4)

79

any of the tests of WM and the productive and receptive measures of implicit knowledge of the targeted structure, which were evidently the most cognitively demanding and the most difficult, as is visible from the scores included in Table 4.15. In the study by Pawlak and Biedro´n (2021), stepwise regression analysis with forward selection was used to investigate the effects of predictor variables in the form of PSTM, measured by means of the Polish Nonword Span, and WMC, operationalized as scores on the Polish Listening Span, and mastery of TL grammar, operationalized as final grammar course grades, on four dependent variables, that is, performance on the four tests of the English passive. Table 4.17 presents the four optimal models that emerged from this analysis. In the case of explicit productive knowledge (Model 1), the independent variables explained 16% of the variance, with superior overall knowledge of TL grammar and WMC playing a key role (B = 0.36 and B = 0.17). As regards explicit receptive knowledge, Model 2 accounted for 8% Table 4.17 Optimal models for the four measures of L2 knowledge based on stepwise regression analyses (N = 171) ( adapted from Pawlak & Biedro´n, 2021, with permission) Model 1: Explicit productive knowledge R = 0.42; R2 = 0.18; adjusted R2 = 0.16 F(4.166) = 8.96; p < 0.00001; Standard error of the estimate: 2.53 Grade 5 PLSPAN Grade 4 Grade 3.5

B

Std. error

t

p

0.36 0.17 0.12 − 0.13

0.09 0.08 0.07 0.09

3.87 2.31 1.57 − 1.42

0.0002* 0.0220* 0.1178 0.1584

Model 2: Explicit receptive knowledge R = 0.31; R2 = 0.10; adjusted R2 = 0.08 F(3.167) = 6.06; p < 0.00061; Standard error of the estimate: 1.81 Grade 4 Grade 5 PLSPAN

B

Std. error

t

p

0.19 0.15 0.10

0.08 0.08 0.08

2.41 1.86 1.30

0.0170* 0.0645 0.1965

Model 3: Implicit productive knowledge R = 0.37; R2 = 0.14; adjusted R2 = 0.12 F(4.166) = 6.79; p < 0.00004; Standard error of the estimate: 2.71 Grade 5 Grade 3.5 PNWSPAN Grade 4.5

B

Std. error

t

p

0.38 − 0.25 0.13 0.10

0.10 0.10 0.07 0.10

3.86 − 2.53 1.72 1.07

0.0002* 0.0123* 0.0869 0.2867

p

Model 4: Implicit receptive knowledge R = 0.33; R2 = 0.11; adjusted R2 = 0.10 F(2.168) = 10.29; p < 0.00006; Standard error of the estimate: 1.69 Grade 5 Grade 3.5

B

Std. error

t

0.40 − 0.16

0.09 0.09

4.36 0.0000* − 1.70 0.0913

80

4 Findings of the Research Project

of the variability, and it was only the final grade in the grammar course, surprisingly not the highest one (i.e., Grade 4 rather than Grade 5), that proved to be the only significant factor (B = 0.19). As regards implicit knowledge, both with respect to its productive and receptive facets, the respective models (i.e., Models 3 and 4) explained 12% and 10% of the variance. In both cases, it was the highest final grades in the grammar course (Grade 5) that were the strongest positive predictors (B = 0.38 for Model 3 and B = 0.40 for Model 4). By contrast, an average grade (i.e., Grade 3.5) proved to be a negative predictor of performance for implicit productive knowledge (B = − 0.25).

4.4.2 Discussion Consistent with the way in which previous studies have been reported, it is fitting to kick off with a comment on participants’ performance on four measures of WM, two tapping into PSTM and two into WMC. Judging by the mean scores, it would seem that students’ scores were on the whole average, typical of the populations in that age range and in most cases comparable to the scores on pilot studies conducted with similar samples. Two important exceptions should be noted here, however. First, the performance on the Polish Nonword Span in this study was about 10% lower than for the participants of the pilot study even though they were also English majors. Second, it is interesting to observe that performance on the PLSPAN was superior to that on the PRSPAN (71% vs. 41% of the maximum score, respectively). This might indicate that the tests may either have differed in the magnitude of challenge they posed or they may have tapped somewhat different facets of WM. Both interpretations might have consequences for interpreting the revealed relationships between WM and L2 knowledge. When it comes to the main thrust of the study, that is the predictive effects of PSTM and WMC on the productive and receptive dimensions of the explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive, the findings can be regarded as disappointing because the role of WM can overall be considered marginal. For one thing, the contribution of WM was confined to explicit knowledge and appeared to primarily affect performance on the measure eliciting production. Specifically, scores on this test correlated with both measures of PSTM as well as the PLSPAN (Study 3) and PLSPAN was also one of the significant predictors of performance on productive explicit knowledge in Model 1 (Study 4). PLSPAN was also the only measure of WM that was found to correlate with the performance on the test of explicit receptive knowledge. It could therefore be argued that, on the whole, WMC played a more important role for the mastery of the targeted feature than PSTM. This said, it has to be emphasized that WM was a very weak predictor in general, accounting for merely 3%–7% of the variance and its contribution to the regression model was minute. What turned out to play a much greater role in determining scores on tests of explicit and implicit knowledge was overall mastery of English grammar, operationalized in terms of the final grades in the grammar course.

4.4 Working Memory (Studies 3 and 4)

81

Such findings are surely not easy to interpret taking into account existing empirical evidence on the link between different aspects of WM and grammar attainment. On the one hand, they corroborate the results of previous research to some extent in that WM was revealed to be related, albeit extremely weakly, to the mastery of grammar, operationalized as the use of the English passive. In addition, also consistent with the results of prior research, WMC proved to be a more important predictor in this respect than PSMT and it was found to affect explicit rather than implicit knowledge (cf. Li et al. 2019; Linck et al., 2014; Martin & Ellis, 2012; Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017; Tagarelli et al., 2015). It was also to some extent predictable that production might hinge more heavily on WM resources since it requires greater reliance on complex processing operations than comprehension (Pienemann & Lenzing, 2015). On the other hand, contrary to expectations based on previous research, some of the findings came as a surprise. In particular, it is puzzling that neither PSTM nor WWC proved to be related in any way to performance on measures of productive and receptive implicit knowledge, both of which were the most demanding and must have imposed heavy cognitive demands on participants. This is in particular true about the productive task which involved the description of a location under time pressure, thus requiring fairly spontaneous production and placing considerable demands on participants’ attentional resources. It could be reasonably assumed that this task was the most demanding of all the measures of the mastery of the passive and thus it should have favored students endowed with greater working memory capacity (Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017; Wright, 2015). Somewhat surprising was also the fact that both measures of PSTM (i.e., digit span and the Polish Nonword Span) should have been related to the performance on the test of productive explicit knowledge and that while the PLSPAN did play a weak predictive role, the PRSPAN did not. Perhaps the most intriguing, however, was the fact that it was overall grammar attainment that by far trumped the mediating effects of working memory. Plausible explanations of the constellation of results emerging from Study 3 and Study 4, even though somewhat speculative, can be related to two factors: the nature of the data collection tools as well as the specificity of the participants, that is, English majors. With respect to the first issue, it is possible that the task tapping implicit productive knowledge could have also allowed reliance on knowledge of the passive that was automatized to some extent. In effect, the nature of the prompts could have made it possible for participants to draw upon partly memorized chunks (e.g., it was built), which might have obviated the need for application of rules in some case and thus limited the contribution of WM. Thus, at the end of the day, it was the test of productive explicit knowledge that turned out to be the most challenging and therefore was benefitted by not only greater WMC but also PSTM, which could have facilitated more speedy access to rules needed to use accurate forms of the parenthesized verbs. At the same time, performance on this test could have also been augmented by reliance on multi-word units, which would account for the contribution of PSTM. A similar explanation can be given for the positive but weak correlation between the PLSPAN and performance on the test of explicit receptive knowledge. This is because, yet again, since students had ample time to fall back on rules to decide on the correctness of sentences and provide the required justification, greater

82

4 Findings of the Research Project

WMC could have been at a premium as well. What is more challenging to account for is that neither PSTM nor WMC proved to be predictors of performance on the test of receptive implicit knowledge. While this measure could have generated fewer processing demands as it did not require construction of utterances, thereby reducing the contribution of WM, the considerable time pressure could have also resulted in guessing and random choices when relevant explicit rules could not be drawn upon. As regards the differential role of the PLSPAN and the PRSPAN, one possibility is that the latter was too challenging to provide a reliable picture of participants’ WMC, as evident in the average scores on the two measures. Finally, the fact that participants were English majors with relatively high TL proficiency, they had made a conscious decision to enroll in the program and they were determined to do their utmost to meet its stringent requirements partly explains why overall grammar attainment was of more consequence to the performance on measures of the passive than PSTM or WCM. While cognitive differences in this respect undoubtedly also play a role, the very fact that students persist in the program and are more cognizant of the intricacies of L2 learning than other learners, might dictate that the contribution of WM to performance will be limited. We also cannot forget that performance is mediated by other ID factors, going far beyond the contribution of different aspects of WM as such. The study suffers from similar limitations to the remaining studies comprising the research project, namely, the lack of qualitative data and somewhat questionable reliability of the measure of receptive implicit knowledge. An additional weakness which became pronounced in this study is related to the nature of the test of implicit productive knowledge which may have allowed excessive reliance on multi-word units that included instances of the passive as well as explicit knowledge that was not fully automatized. There are also some issues with tests of working memory. Particularly disconcerting is the considerable difference in performance on the PLSPAN and the PRSPAN, which raises the issue of which one was too easy or too difficult as well as whether they tap to the same extent into WCM. It could also be argued that the predictive effects of different facets of WMC could have been different if a different targeted feature, perhaps less known to participants, had been selected. Another problem is the fact that, due to missing data, the number of participants differed on tests of WM in the case of correlational analysis (Study 3). All such weaknesses notwithstanding, it must be emphasized that this is perhaps the first study to have investigated relationships between PSTM and WMC, and the mastery of TL grammar in such a fine-grained manner. This is because a total of four measures of WM were employed, productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of specific TL structure were considered, and the mediating effects of grammar attainment were taken into account, even if its operationalization as course grades may not have been optimal. Addressing such complex issues inevitably brings with it a price to be paid in terms of methodological rigor. Nonetheless, the reported findings underscore the complexity of the relationship between WM and grammar achievement, which can be moderated by other variables as well, grades in this case, but potentially also a host of other ID factors. Thus, further research is clearly indispensable to solve this intriguing puzzle. More

4.4 Working Memory (Studies 3 and 4)

83

specifically, it would be advisable to focus on other TL structures or constellations of such structures in different additional languages, keep improving the measures of WM and L2 knowledge, involve learners at different levels and in different program types, and also examine the role of other ID variables that may hinder the impact of WM. The last point is particularly important for the simple reason that ultimately WM is less amenable to identification and external manipulation than many other ID factors (cf. Pawlak, 2017a, 2020b).

4.5 Motivation As was explained in earlier parts of this book, motivation was conceptualized in this study in terms of the L2 motivational self system. Accordingly, the questionnaire that was used to collect requisite data included subscales that are typically used in research drawing on this theoretical perspective, that is, motivated learning behavior, ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, family influence, L2 learning experience, instrumentality, linguistic self-confidence, English anxiety, interest in English and its culture, travel orientation, and lack of ethnocentrism.

4.5.1 Findings Tables 4.18 and 4.19 present descriptive statistics for different facets of motivation examined in the present study and performance on the four tasks tapping into the mastery of the English passive voice, respectively. Yet again, since scores on the four Table 4.18 Means and standard deviations for different facets of motivation examined in the study (N = 138) Facets of L2 motivation

M (SD)

Motivated learning behavior

5.15 (0.82)

Ideal L2 self

4.88 (1.36)

Ought-to L2 self

3.05 (1.31)

Family influence

3.83 (1.04)

L2 learning experience

3.46 (1.06)

Instrumentality

4.83 (1.30)

Linguistic self-confidence

4.78 (1.25)

English anxiety

3.45 (1.44)

Interest in English and its culture

4.98 (0.87)

Travel orientation

5.12 (1.24)

Lack of ethnocentrism

5.06 (0.72)

84

4 Findings of the Research Project

Table 4.19 Means and standard deviations for the four measures of the mastery of the English passive voice (N = 138) Measures of the mastery of the English passive voice Explicit productive knowledge Explicit receptive knowledge

M (SD) 7.24 (2.66) 10.12 (1.78)

Implicit productive knowledge

5.88 (3.12)

Implicit receptive knowledge

8.68 (1.87)

tests were comparable across the six studies, the focus will be on the results for the subscales of the motivation questionnaire. On the whole, the majority of the dimensions proved to play an important role in shaping participants’ motivation. There were three cases in which the means exceeded 5.00 and these included, in decreasing order, motivated learning behavior (M = 5.15), travel orientation (M = 5.12) and lack of ethnocentrism (M = 5.06). Also worth highlighting is the considerable contribution of interest in English and its culture (M = 4.98), ideal L2 self (M = 4.88), instrumentality (M = 4.83) as well as linguistic self-confidence (M = 4.78), since in all of these cases the means were found to approach 5.00. It would also appear that encouragement from family members was a relatively important influence on students’ L2MSS (M = 3.83). On the other end of the spectrum, the mean hardly exceeded 3.00 (M = 3.05) for the ought-to L2 self, which implies that expectations originating with significant others were not a crucial factor in shaping participants’ motivation. It should also be noted that there was considerable individual variation in terms of the importance of the motivational dimensions examined in this study, as illustrated by relatively high SD values, particularly for English anxiety (SD = 1.44), ideal L2 self (SD = 1.36), ought-to L2 self (SD = 1.31), instrumentality (SD = 1.30), linguistic self-confidence (SD = 1.25) and travel orientation (SD = 1.24). As can be seen from Table 4.20, a number of statistically significant, positive correlations were revealed between some facets of L2 motivation and productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive. At the same time, effect sizes were small-to-medium and only about 3%–17.5% of the variance was accounted for. The links are the most evident in the case of performance on the test of explicit productive knowledge which proved to be the most strongly related to motivated learning behavior (r = 0.42), linguistic self-confidence (r = 0.40), travel orientation (r = 0.36), ideal L2 self (r = 0.32), instrumentality (r = 0.31), and L2 learning experience (r = 0.28). The remaining positive correlations (i.e., with ought-to L2 self and family influence) were weak, explaining just a little over 4% of the variance. Positive, significant links were also detected for implicit productive knowledge, even though they were on the whole weaker. Scores on this measure correlated most strongly with family influence (r = 0.32), linguistic selfconfidence (r = 0.32), ought-to L2 self (r = 0.28) and travel orientation (r = 0.28). The remaining positive relationships (i.e., with interest in the English language and its culture, L2 learning experience, instrumentality and ideal L2 self) were weaker

4.5 Motivation

85

Table 4.20 Correlations among different facets of motivation and the four measures of the mastery of the passive voice (N = 138) Explicit productive knowledge

Explicit receptive knowledge

Implicit productive knowledge

Implicit receptive knowledge − 0.04

Motivated learning behavior

0.42*

0.24*

0.13

Ideal L2 self

0.32*

0.05

0.18*

0.12

Ought-to L2 self

0.21*

0.28*

− 0.12

Family influence

0.22*

− 0.05

0.32*

0.08

L2 learning experience

0.28*

0.12

0.23*

0.13

Instrumentality

0.31*

0.17*

0.20*

0.07

Linguistic self-confidence

0.40*

0.14

0.32*

0.09

0.19*

− 0.13

0.06

Interest in English and its culture

0.12

− 0.02

0.24*

Travel orientation

0.36*

0.14

0.28*

Lack of ethnocentrism

0.12

0.01

0.05

English anxiety

− 0.09

0.04 0.14 0.03 − 0.13

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

and accounted for at best about 6% of the observed variability. Meaningful relationships were also uncovered for explicit receptive knowledge which correlated, albeit weakly, with motivated learning behavior (r = 0.24), ought-to L2 self (r = 0.19) and instrumentality (r = 0.17). Performance on the test of implicit receptive knowledge did not correlate with any of the dimensions of L2 motivation included in the questionnaire.

4.5.2 Discussion In the first place, a few words are in order on the motivational profiles of the participants. As can be seen from the results, these students are determined to devote a lot of time and effort to the study of English and they are ready to persevere despite the obstacles they may encounter on their paths. They are cognizant of the importance of the mastery of the TL for traveling, they clearly welcome the idea of visiting other countries, and they are characterized by a high degree of openness to other cultures and ways of life. Related to the last point, they manifest interest in English and the culture it stands for but also envisage themselves as successful users of this language in different walks of life in the future, they are aware that the mastery of this L2

86

4 Findings of the Research Project

will enhance their opportunities for success in terms of employment, and they are quite confident about their TL ability. Even though they appreciate to some extent the encouragement of family members, they do not appear to be overwhelmed by the pressure that some significant figures in their lives, either within their family or without, might be trying to exert. In other words, the expectations of others are of much less relevance than the goals that participants choose for themselves. In addition, they attach little importance to the quality of learning environment during L2 classes and in their own time, and they are not particularly prone to succumb to anxiety when using English. On the whole, such findings cannot come as much of a surprise given the fact that participants were English majors who made a conscious decision to enroll in the program and confront the challenges this entailed. It can be reasonably assumed that already when making this choice, the vast majority were interested in the English language and its culture, they were open to the idea of using the TL for traveling, they realized that the knowledge of this language would allow them to get to know other cultures and they must have been to some extent interested in such otherness. Logically, they could have been expected to have a vivid vision of themselves as proficient users of the TL in the future, to have been cognizant of the practical benefits of the mastery of English and to have had confidence in their ability to use this language. We should also not forget that most participants were contemplating the idea of becoming English teachers, with the attributes just mentioned clearly being desirable in this profession. Given all the hurdles that need to be cleared to complete this demanding program, the high level of motivated behavior can also hardly come as a surprise as it is simply indispensable to be able to complete all the components of the English course and then succeed on the end-of-the-year examinations. It is surely interesting that while students appreciated the support of their close ones, their actions were evidently not really driven by what others wanted them to do. Moreover, the need to successfully confront the challenges of studying apparently superseded negative feelings of anxiety and took precedence over how they viewed the quality of engagement with different aspects of L2 learning. All of this should not blind us to the fact that some students (perhaps those in year 1) could have had second thoughts about their suitability for the program, felt equally anxious and confident, and could have been learning the TL for reasons that were not entirely clear to them but still cherished a strong vision of themselves as users of English. After all, we should keep in mind that there was considerable individual variation with respect to some of the dimensions of the L2MSS, which shows that even in the case of English majors, the motivation to learn the TL is by no means isomorphic and it is the outcome of a complex interplay of individual and contextual influences. Moving on to the main focus of the study, that is, the relationships between different facets of motivation and mastery of the English passive voice, some evident patterns can also be discerned. For one thing, it is clear that the bulk of positive, significant correlations were revealed for the productive dimension of L2 knowledge, whether explicit or implicit. One possible explanation is that being able to actually engage in TL production can logically be seen as the ultimate, most crucial goal of learning an additional language, much more important than understanding

4.5 Motivation

87

it, with accurate, meaningful and appropriate use of grammar constituting an integral component of this process. In fact, this observation might apply in even greater measure to English majors who are required to but, even more importantly, simply wish to be able to use the TL productively in a wide range of situations that they are bound to encounter in future jobs, when traveling abroad or in encounters with native speakers or other foreigners. This can help better understand why such dimensions as linguistic self-confidence, travel orientation as well as instrumentality positively correlated, albeit with varying strength, to explicit and implicit knowledge in production. Another crucial insight is that the observed positive relationships were more pronounced for explicit rather than implicit knowledge, with slightly different aspects of motivation playing a key part in both cases. Such findings are perhaps best accounted for in terms of the nature of the program in which mastery of TL grammar often plays a decisive role. In addition, while students are expected to use grammar structures in spontaneous interaction, instruction is to a large extent explicit, drawing in the main on controlled exercises and such activities are preferred in different forms of assessment (cf. Pawlak, 2012b, 2013a). As shown above, this is bound to impact beliefs about GI and apparently also impact interactions between different facets of L2 motivation and the measures of L2 knowledge, even if such knowledge is confined to a single aspect of the grammatical system. To put it differently, it would appear that a firm grasp on grammar rules is an inherent part of the ideal L2 self that students hold, it gives them the confidence to use the TL, and can also be perceived as something that will help them when traveling. Once again, it should be kept in mind that since many students are prospective English teachers, they might see familiarity with rules and the ability to employ them as a sine qua non in their future jobs. If this is true, it is hardly surprising that correlations in the case of motivated behavior were among the highest for explicit productive knowledge and that a significant relationship was also revealed for explicit receptive knowledge. Although some dimensions of L2 motivation were also related to implicit productive knowledge, the links were much weaker. Particularly notable is the fact that performance in this respect did not correlate with motivated behavior but at the same time significant, although weak, relationships were uncovered with family influence and interest in English and its culture. It could be hypothesized that the way in which grammar classes are conducted obviates the need for the use of grammar structures in communication, parental encouragement emphasizes it, whereas efforts to get to know the English culture and to interact with native speakers necessitate it. All in all, these findings paint a much more complex picture of the links between grammar attainment and motivation than the study by DeKeyser (1993), who found that low and high extrinsic motivation corresponded to the effects of explicit and implicit error correction, respectively. The present study is also not without its limitations. Some of them, like reliance on only quantitative data, the adoption of a macro-perspective or the possible flaws in the design of some of the tests of L2 knowledge are characteristic of the entire research project. However, there are other limitations which can be regarded as specific to this particular investigation. First, the instrument employed to tap into L2 motivation included numerous factors, some of which were measured by means of

88

4 Findings of the Research Project

just three or four items, which may raise questions about validity, even if internal consistency reliability of the subscales was satisfactory. Second, although dimensions of L2 motivation included in the study have been routinely taken into account in other investigations of the L2MSS, one may wonder about the extent to which they indeed reflect motivational processes and, even if they do, whether some of them are even consistently relatable to mastery of TL grammar (e.g., lack of ethnocentrism). Third, since the original tool was designed for secondary school students and was only slightly modified for the purpose of this study, it is possible that some of the items may not have sufficiently addressed the realities of the BA program in English. Lastly, as already hinted at with respect to beliefs and GLS, an attempt to link different aspects of L2 motivation to performance on measures of productive and receptive explicit and implicit knowledge of only one element of the TL grammatical system (i.e., the passive) might be a risky proposition that would need to be verified by further research. Despite such limitations, the findings of the study are without doubt intriguing since they have yielded a surely complex portrayal of relationships between L2 motivation and TL grammar attainment. More studies are needed to shed additional light on such relationships because understanding students’ motives in this respect can help teachers better direct their efforts and choose more propitious instructional options. Hopefully, this might result in a more balanced focus on learning and practicing rules, and trying to use those rules in communicative interaction.

4.6 Willingness to Communicate As will be recalled from Sect. 2.5.6 of Chap. 2, willingness to communicate was measured by means of the WTCI, a tool developed by Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2017) after two rounds of EFA. The questionnaire included the following subscales representing factors found to underlie WTC: communication confidence, ought-to self, classroom environment, international posture—openness to experience, unplanned in-class WTC, international posture—interest in international affairs, practice-seeking WTC and planned in-class WTC. It should be noted that while some of these constructs reflect to some extent those examined in Study 5, the actual items they comprised were in many cases different.

4.6.1 Findings Tables 4.21 and 4.22 present the means and standard deviations for the different facets underlying L2 WTC and participants’ performance on the four tests of productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice. Also in this case, given overall similarity of the scores on the measures of the mastery of the targeted feature, the emphasis will be placed on the importance of the

4.6 Willingness to Communicate

89

Table 4.21 Means and standard deviations for factors underlying WTC (N = 122) Factors underlying WTC

M (SD)

Communication confidence

4.86 (1.32)

Ought-to L2 self

2.94 (1.52)

Classroom environment

4.94 (1.12)

International posture—openness to experience

4.78 (1.06)

Unplanned in-class WTC

4.83 (1.30)

International posture—interest in international affairs

4.86 (1.25)

Practice-seeking WTC

3.92 (1.44)

Planned in-class WTC

3.66 (1.24)

Table 4.22 Means and standard deviations for the four measures of the mastery of the English passive voice (N = 122) Measures of the mastery of the English passive voice Explicit productive knowledge Explicit receptive knowledge

M (SD) 7.28 (2.70) 10.14 (1.72)

Implicit productive knowledge

5.91 (3.15)

Implicit receptive knowledge

8.72 (1.88)

various aspects of WTC. The highest means, approaching 5.00 were obtained for the following subscales: classroom environment (M = 4.94), communication confidence (M = 4.86), unplanned in-class WTC (M = 4.83), international posture—interest in international affairs (M = 4.86) and international posture—openness to experience (M = 4.78). What should also be highlighted is practice-seeking WTC, in which case the mean was much lower but almost approximated the value of 4.00. Planned classroom WTC was visibly of less significance (M = 3.66), whereas ought-to self apparently played a marginal role since the mean in this case amounted to barely 2.94. Just like in the case of motivation (Study 5), there was considerable individual variation for all the factors, since the SD values exceeded 1.00 in all cases and were the highest for ought-to self (SD = 1.52) and practice-seeking WTC (SD = 1.44). Moving on to the results of correlational analysis of relationships between different facets of WTC and scores on four tests of the English passive, the values of relevant correlation coefficients are presented in Table 4.23. Also here, several positive, significant, small-to-medium correlations were revealed, with the caveat that the amount of variance being accounted for was lower than for L2 motivation, ranging from about 3.5% to about 19%. Two evident tendencies immediately catch the eye: first, once again, positive relationships are far more numerous and pronounced in the case of productive L2 knowledge, whether explicit or implicit; second, significant relationships were by and large comparable for explicit and implicit knowledge but slightly stronger for the latter. More specifically, explicit productive knowledge was found to be most strongly related to planned in-class WTC (r = 0.42), international

90

4 Findings of the Research Project

Table 4.23 Correlations among different facets of WTC and the four measures of the mastery of the passive voice (N = 122) Explicit productive knowledge

Explicit receptive knowledge

Implicit productive knowledge

Communication confidence

0.28*

0.09

0.34*

Ought-to L2 self

0.22*

0.12

0.19*

Classroom environment 0.12 International posture—openness to experience

0.11

Unplanned in-class WTC

− 0.03

0.09

Implicit receptive knowledge 0.20* -0.07 − 0.04

0.13

0.28*

0.11

0.24*

− 0.12

0.36*

0.03

International posture—interest in international affairs

0.33*

0.08

0.34*

− 0.12

Practice-seeking WTC

0.21*

0.03

0.29*

Planned in-class WTC

0.42*

0.08

0.23*

0.22* − 0.07

Note * indicates a statistically significant value at 0.05

posture—interest in international affairs (r = 0.33), communication confidence (r = 0.28) and unplanned in-class WTC (r = 0.24). As regards implicit productive knowledge, correlations were highest for unplanned in-class WTC (r = 0.36), communication confidence (r = 0.34), international posture—interest in international affairs (r = 0.34), practice-seeking WTC (r = 0.29), and international posture—openness to experience (r = 0.28). Although some significant links were uncovered also in the case of receptive implicit knowledge, they were small and negligible.

4.6.2 Discussion Before undertaking the interpretation of the findings, a word of caution is needed. While some of the facets in this study are very similar, if not identical, to those investigated in the case of motivation, the particular scales and the items they included are not the same and, even more importantly, the sample was also different to some extent even though many students took part both in Study 5 and Study 6. For this reason, it is advisable to take any comparisons with considerable circumspection, even when such comparisons are attempted. On the whole, however, the revealed patterns can also be accounted for in terms of the nature of the BA program that students attended, the kind of instruction they received and the type of assessment that was routinely used. Since such issues were covered several times earlier in this book, suffice it to say that the students were required to attain a very high level of TL

4.6 Willingness to Communicate

91

proficiency, they had to attend separate grammar classes in which this subsystem was largely taught and tested in a traditional manner, and grammar attainment was also a key consideration with respect to the outcomes of final examinations. We should also not forget that many students were preparing to become English teachers, which must have made them more aware of L2 learning processes and sensitized them to the need to get a good grasp of grammar rules to be able to explain them one day. Keeping these considerations in mind, once again, it is not surprising that the participants were overall quite confident of their ability to communicate in the TL and that they manifested a high degree of international posture, both in regard to new experiences in using English and in terms of employing this language to get to know other countries. To some extent predictable was also a very limited role of the expectations of others concerning students’ success in learning English, as a similar trend was observed for motivation, as well as the importance of unplanned in-class WTC, which could engender unfettered, spontaneous TL use. On the other hand, the scores for practice-seeking WTC and in-class planned WTC could have certainly been higher. However, in the first case, the items may not have represented the things that students are prepared to do to practice English and, in the second, they could have simply been bored with such traditional classroom activities as role plays or discussions because of their repetitiveness (cf. Pawlak et al., 2021). Much more difficult to understand is the weight given to classroom environment, something that did not happen for motivation but, again, the items included in the two scales were quite different and in the case of WTC only reflected classroom-based processes. When it comes to the outcomes of the correlational analysis, some of the interpretations mirror those offered for L2 motivation (Study 5). For example, since L2 production is often perceived as the prime manifestation of TL ability, it is not surprising that in cases where positive relationships were observed, they concerned productive and not receptive dimensions of both types of L2 knowledge. Also, relatively easy to explain are the small-to-medium positive correlations with productive explicit knowledge since, given the foci and aims of the program, familiarity with rules and the ability to use them accurately are most likely seen as indispensable in a variety of situations in which L2 communication may occur, also when in-class contributions are unplanned and come largely on the spur of the moment. What is certainly noteworthy is that the strongest overall relationship was observed between this measure and planned in-class WTC as accurate, meaningful and appropriate use of grammar structures might be seen as crucial in such contexts. On the other hand, since WTC precedes actual TL use, which will often be more spontaneous than controlled, slightly stronger relationships in the case of implicit productive knowledge are understandable. After all, the decision to enter into communication with native speakers and other proficient foreigners or to make an unplanned contribution to a discussion in class might require access to implicit or automatized knowledge (DeKeyser, 2017) and perhaps even be contingent on it. This also holds for communication confidence because the ability to employ rules in spontaneous interaction is likely to boost learners’ self-efficacy beliefs (cf. Mills et al., 2007) but also enhance their conviction that they can attain a given communicative goal, much more so than awareness of rules. This could also explain positive correlations between receptive

92

4 Findings of the Research Project

implicit knowledge and practice-seeking WTC as well as communication confidence, but we should keep in mind some of the problems that this test suffered from (i.e., relatively low reliability). Most of the weaknesses of the present study are related to the limitations of this research project in its entirety, such as the lack of qualitative data, lower-thanrecommended reliability of some tests of L2 knowledge or the inability to look into the role of ID factors more holistically due to incomplete data sets. What could be added here is that although the WTCI was the result of careful piloting as well as meticulous statistical procedures in the form of EFA, confirmatory factor analysis could have been used to confirm the eight-factor solution for this group of participants. They were English majors as well but often came from smaller universities, while students in the study carried out by Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2017) were more representative of the entire population of English majors in Poland. In addition, perhaps regression analysis, which would have included such factors as experience in learning English study, grades or self-evaluation of general TL ability, could have generated a more nuanced picture of the relationships under investigation. Finally, also in this case, a question can be posed about the extent to which scores on measures of different types of knowledge of specific TL structure, even if carefully chosen, can be realistically expected to be related to various facets of WTC.

4.7 Conclusion The aim of the present chapter was to present the findings of six studies which comprised the research project and were intended to offer insights into the role of beliefs about grammar instruction, grammar learning strategies, working memory, motivation and willingness to communicate in mediating scores on productive and receptive measures of explicit and implicit knowledge of the English passive voice. Although more general observations concerning the results of the entire investigation, together with their interpretation and possible limitations, will presented in Chap. 5, some preliminary comments are warranted at this juncture. On the whole, correlation analyses and regression analyses in the six studies showed that relationships between the ID factors in question and different facets of L2 knowledge were at best moderate but mostly weak and they did not hold at all for many subscales. In fact, when final grades or results of self-evaluation were entered into the regression models, their predictive power often proved to be much stronger. This, like many other findings, can be the corollary of the specificity of the program in which English majors are expected to achieve a superior level of TL proficiency, with language classes and evaluation measures being designed accordingly, although in all likelihood far from being optimal. It should also be emphasized that the research project is not without weaknesses, some of which are inherent in its overall design and the way in was conducted and others being related to specific studies. These issues will be tackled in more detail in Chap. 5, which also includes a handful of pedagogical implications and directions for future research.

Chapter 5

Conclusions, Implications and Directions for Future Research

Although there are numerous studies that have investigated the impact of various instructional options and teaching processes on the development of L2 knowledge, relatively few of them have also taken into account the mediating role of ID factors or have narrowly focused on such that may be of limited relevance to practitioners (cf. Pawlak, 2020b). The research project reported in this book was intended to at least partly rectify this problem by further exploring the interfaces between selected cognitive and affective ID variables, and grammar attainment. The study was conducted in the Polish educational setting and involved Polish university students majoring in English, who are required to attain superior proficiency in the TL. The ID factors that were taken into account included: beliefs about grammar instruction, grammar learning strategies, working memory, motivation and willingness to communicate. When it comes to L2 grammar attainment, it was operationalized in terms of the use of different variants of the English passive voice on measures of productive and receptive explicit and implicit (highly automatized) knowledge. A number of data collection instruments were used that were either modifications of existing tools or were specifically designed for the purpose of this research project. The results are reported in the form of six studies which relied on correlation analyses and regression analyses to shed light on the relationships between different aspects of individual variation and L2 knowledge. Since detailed findings were presented and discussed in Chap. 4, emphasis will be placed here on more general patterns and limitations. An attempt will also be made to offer some tentative pedagogical implications and chart directions for future empirical investigations. When we look at the different pieces of the puzzle emanating from the six studies reported in Chap. 4, the single most overriding conclusion is that the mediating role of the ID factors in question on TL grammar attainment on the whole turned out to be marginal. Obviously, it is true that different categories of beliefs, motivation or willingness to communicate correlated with some of the measures of L2 knowledge but their contribution was moderate at best and negligible in most cases. Perhaps the most disappointing results were obtained for grammar learning strategies and working © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8_5

93

94

5 Conclusions, Implications and Directions for Future Research

memory. In the former case, it was GLS supporting the use of grammar structures in communicative interaction that were a weak predictor of performance on measures of explicit and implicit productive knowledge, whereas affective GLS proved to exert a stronger or weaker influence on all types of knowledge of L2 grammar. In the latter case, the positive links were mainly revealed in the case of explicit productive knowledge and it was primarily working memory capacity, measured by means of the Polish Listening Span (Zychowicz et al., 2017), that turned out to be the most important, albeit weak, predictor. A particularly interesting finding was that when regression analyses were undertaken (i.e., in the case of GLS and WM), it was overall mastery of L2 grammar, operationalized as final grammar course grades, as well as general TL proficiency, gauged by means of self-assessment scores, that by far superseded the contribution of ID factors. While a number of plausible explanations for this state of affairs were offered in different parts of Chap. 4, it would appear that it was the nature of the BA program that the participants attended that is predominantly responsible for this situation. Since students are expected to achieve a very high level of proficiency to be able to successfully function as professionals in different spheres of life, the intensive English course constituting the core of the BA program gives considerable weight to the mastery of grammar, including structures that are unlikely to be employed in everyday communication. This focus also finds a reflection in the way that the course is organized and its outcomes are assessed. This is because it includes in most instances separate classes dedicated to teaching grammar and this subsystem is not only tested in its own right on final examinations but also greatly influences assessment of speaking and writing components because individual rubrics are used to evaluate the use of TL grammar. Still, it should be highlighted that the observed contribution of ID factors turned out to be the strongest in the case of variables that are amenable to manipulation to some extent (i.e., beliefs, motivation, WTC), which can serve as a basis for some recommendations for pedagogy considered later in this chapter. The research project is certainly not free from limitations which were discussed in relation to specific studies in Chap. 4. While reiterating all of them one more time at this point is hardly warranted, suffice it to say that some of the measures of the mastery of the English passive may not have elicited the kind of performance that had been hoped for (e.g., implicit receptive knowledge), some of the instruments were not subjected to a new round of EFA with samples to which they were administered, and analyses could have been more elaborate is some cases (e.g., beliefs, L2 motivation, WTC) and included other variables (e.g., experience in learning English, grades, selfassessment). This said, there are two main weaknesses that override the significance of these just mentioned. First and foremost, although the initial intention was to come up with an elaborate model in which the collective role of the ID variables involved in this investigation could be probed into, this proved to be impossible due to incomplete data as well as technical problems. Although, in light of the overall small contribution of ID factors revealed in the studies, such a model would have been highly unlikely to produce valuable insights, it is surely regrettable that it could not be constructed. The second general problem concerns the fact that this research project zoomed in on a single TL feature, that is, the passive voice in English, and

5 Conclusions, Implications and Directions for Future Research

95

even if a stronger mediating effect of individual variation had been uncovered, a point could rightly be made that it might not hold for other grammar structures in the TL. Even though this criticism is undoubtedly valid, the passive is an extremely versatile structure which involves the use of a wide range of other features, with the effect that performance in this respect can provide a viable window on overall mastery of TL grammar. In addition, tapping into the mastery of a wide range of structures in the context of the study may have been a futile effort, as explained in earlier parts of this book. Disappointing as they might be, the findings of the research project do provide a basis for a number of tentative pedagogical implications which are mainly intended for BA or MA program for English majors, but apply to majors in other foreign languages as this is the context in which the research project was undertaken. In the first place, it would appear that while a focus on TL grammar and traditional ways of mastering it is totally understandable, there is a pressing need for greater emphasis on tasks which provide opportunities for the employment of grammar structures in communicative interaction, both in classes specifically dedicated to TL grammar and others comprising the intensive course in English. This might require a change both in relation to the mindsets of students and their instructors, and the parties who are responsible for making ultimate decisions about how such programs are at the end of the day envisaged and implemented. In this connection, it would seem that some pedagogical interventions might be blatantly indispensable in relation to students’ beliefs about grammar learning strategies, motivation and willingness to communicate. What should certainly be emphasized on the basis of the findings of the research project is that, contrary to recommendations advanced by some researchers (e.g., Bielak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2020), it might be risky to tamper with students’ affective states as this might bring more bad than good. This recommendation is based on the findings of Study 2, which showed that excessive reliance on affective GLS might have a negative impact on TL performance, at least with respect to the use of the English passive voice. Finally, there is certainly an urgent need for further research that would illuminate the mediating role of ID factors in determining the mastery of TL grammar. In the first place, such empirical investigations should focus on an even wider palette of ID factors and tap into the mastery of other grammar features as well as generally conceived grammar attainment if such attainment can be reliably established. It could focus, for example, on personality, learning styles, grit, boredom, enjoyment or curiosity as these variables can be expected to have a bearing on both the approach to learning TL grammar and the outcomes of such endeavors. Were it possible to collect such data, requisite statistical procedures would enable constructing models that would provide insights into the intricate network of variables which collectively act to shape productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge of TL grammar. Moreover, our understanding of how TL grammar attainment interacts with individual variation would undoubtedly be augmented by studies that would combine the macro- and micro-perspective, integrating in a most propitious way quantitative and qualitative methodologies. In the case of the present research project, for example, interviews, immediate reports or stimulated recall data would have

96

5 Conclusions, Implications and Directions for Future Research

surely enabled us to better understand complex relationships between ID factors and L2 knowledge. It would also be interesting to explore how different constellations of IDs interact with various aspects of L2 grammar knowledge over time (Jung et al., 2020), an issue that can only be examined through longitudinal research. Finally, given the specificity of the context in which this research project was undertaken, it is clearly necessary to examine the links between ID factors and TL grammar attainment with respect not only to other populations and educational levels but also different L2s and program types. One way or another, insights of this kind can certainly be expected to enhance the effectiveness of L2 grammar instruction in a wide variety of settings.

Appendix A Measures of productive and receptive dimensions of explicit and implicit (highly automatized) knowledge of the English passive voice: Measure of explicit productive knowledge Put the verbs in parentheses in the correct form. You may take as long as you want to complete this task: Washington DC (1) (locate) ____________ in the District of Columbia along the Potomac River. It (2) (design) ____________ by the French architect Pierre L’Enfant in the late eighteenth century. When the city (3) (plan) ____________ as the nation capital, the whole process (4) (observe) ____________ by President Washington. In fact, he (5) (say, reject) ____________ some of the ideas that L’Enfant first had and he liked (6) (tell) ____________ about the progress with the construction. By the time the president died, many of the structures (7) (complete) ____________. Many buildings (8) (admire) ____________ in Washington for years, but the most important of them is the White House which simply must (9) (see) ____________ by anyone visiting the American capital. The building (10) (close) ____________ to the public for the last few years but it (11) (make) ____________ available to visitors right now. It (12) (think) ____________ that it (13) (visit) ____________ by ten million people by the end of the year. At the moment a lot of new things (14) (bring) ____________ into the White House because the new president has just moved in. Both he and his wife enjoy (15) (talk) ____________ about and they want to make sure that the building looks really good. Measure of explicit receptive knowledge Check (✓) sentences that you believe to be accurate. If you think that a sentence is inaccurate, please explain why, as in the following example: “He was gave a job”—wrong verb form. You can use English or Polish to provide the justification:

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8

97

98

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Appendix A

They haven’t seen each other since then. _________________________________________________ The dogs love to have been cuddled and stroked. _________________________________________________ Toilet facilities may be found at the back of the building. _________________________________________________ Refreshments will be served during the break. _________________________________________________ The government is said to be out of touch with public opinion. _________________________________________________ This new blue car has fitted with an alarm. _________________________________________________ You will be provided with the necessary information before the meeting. _________________________________________________ The matter is looked into by the committee right now. _________________________________________________ The suspect is believed to hide in the mountains in the north. _________________________________________________ The lift was vandalized by an unknown person last month. _________________________________________________ We were never consulted over the merger plans. _________________________________________________ He resented not being invited to the award-giving ceremony. _________________________________________________ The form must be completed in black ink. _________________________________________________ He is said to have been sentenced to 5 years in jail. _________________________________________________ We didn’t expect this project to be completed on time. _________________________________________________

Measure of implicit productive knowledge Describe the house in New York on the basis of prompts. You have four minutes to complete the task (numbers in parentheses represent the number of evaluated prompts). Location: locate the suburbs near a beautiful lake and park, surround by a garden, can see from the highway (3). History: build at the beginning of the nineteenth century, destroy by four fires since that time, regard as one of the most beautiful houses in the area for a long time (3). Services: at present a lot of trees plant along the street, a new shopping center build a few kilometers away lately, by the end of the year a swimming pool complex construct in the neighborhood, see by twenty potential buyers since last month, owners believe to be very rich (4).

Appendix A

99

Other information: five rooms and two bathrooms, redecorated 5 years ago—rooms painted, garage added, cable television installed, windows changed, roof repaired, not used since that time, the owner run over by a car after the redecoration, recently bought by some millionaire but nobody seen there since that time (5). Measure of implicit receptive knowledge You will see a PowerPoint presentation containing 15 sentences. Each sentence will be visible for only a limited time and it will not be repeated. Check (✓) sentences that you believe to be accurate. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

They have been seen together once or twice. His career was broken when she accused him of treason. He is said to have been engaged in a serious affair. A new flu vaccine will soon be sent to pharmacies in the country. I see the washing up hasn’t been done. Components are transported to the production line. The currency was devalued twice this year. The area is monitored now by closed circuit cameras. I hated not been invited to the opening ceremony. There is no denying that nobody likes being cheated. Tom deeply regretted not being selected for the team. The trade unions have asked for fuel prices to reduce. Theirs was perhaps the most scandalous affair to have been reported in our magazine. The mansion had to be rebuild after the fire. The judge ought to have sent him to prison.

Appendix B The questionnaire tapping into the participants’ beliefs about different aspects of grammar instruction (Pawlak, 2021c). The questionnaire aims to collect information about your preferences concerning grammar instruction and error correction. Your responses will only be used for research purposes, so please be candid in your answers. Gender M/F Level in the program _____________ How long have you been learning English? _____________ How would you self-evaluate your command of English on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 6 (highest)? Overall mastery Grammar Vocabulary Pronunciation Reading Writing Listening Speaking

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Do you use/have access to English outside school? If so, what form does it take? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ What was your semester grade in the grammar (English) course? _______ On a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), how would you rate the importance of grammar instruction in learning English? _______ Below you will find statements about grammar instruction and correction of grammar errors. Please read each statement and indicate your opinion by circling a number between 1 and 5 as follows: 1—strongly disagree 2—disagree 3—neither agree or disagree 4—agree 5—strongly agree

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8

101

102

Appendix B

1.

I usually keep grammar rules in mind when I write in English

1 2 3 4 5

2.

It is best to discover grammar rules together with other students

1 2 3 4 5

3.

Controlled practice (e.g. doing exercises) is the best way to learn grammar

1 2 3 4 5

4.

When I make errors in speaking English, I like my teacher to correct them

1 2 3 4 5

5.

I like to discover grammar rules by myself

1 2 3 4 5

6.

I believe that the teacher should only correct errors which interrupt communication

1 2 3 4 5

7.

I like to know exactly which grammar point I am studying

1 2 3 4 5

8.

Teachers should correct students when they make grammar errors in class

1 2 3 4 5

9.

I like to study only the structures which cause problems in communication

1 2 3 4 5

10. I prefer to read or listen to texts containing new structures rather than be 1 2 3 4 5 given rules 11. Knowing grammar rules helps communication in English

1 2 3 4 5

12. It is best when the teacher explains grammar rules

1 2 3 4 5

13. I prefer to learn grammar as I work on different skills and activities

1 2 3 4 5

14. I find it helpful when the teacher uses my mother tongue to explain grammar points

1 2 3 4 5

15. I prefer to first understand how a structure is used before I have to produce it

1 2 3 4 5

16. I believe that the use of terminology is important in teaching grammar

1 2 3 4 5

17. Knowledge about grammar rules helps in understanding other people’s speech

1 2 3 4 5

18. I believe it is important to use grammar structures in communication

1 2 3 4 5

19. When I make grammar errors in writing in English, I like my teacher to 1 2 3 4 5 correct them 20. It helps me when teachers use demonstration in teaching grammar (e.g. underlining)

1 2 3 4 5

21. I like to be given texts in which the new structure is highlighted (e.g. it is in bold)

1 2 3 4 5

22. I like the teacher to correct my grammar mistakes as soon as I make them

1 2 3 4 5

23. Knowing a lot about grammar helps my reading

1 2 3 4 5

24. I like the teacher to correct my grammar mistakes after an activity is completed

1 2 3 4 5

25. I believe my English will improve quickly if I study and practice grammar

1 2 3 4 5

26. I prefer to be corrected on grammar by other students rather than the teacher

1 2 3 4 5 (continued)

Appendix B

103

(continued) 27. I like the teacher to give me a list of structures that will be taught in a course

1 2 3 4 5

28. I like learning grammar by using the new structure in communicative activities

1 2 3 4 5

29. I like studying English grammar

1 2 3 4 5

30. I like learning grammar by seeing the explanation, and then doing practice activities

1 2 3 4 5

I like studying grammar because: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ I don’t like studying grammar because: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ I like to be taught grammar in the following ways: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ I don’t like to be taught grammar in the following ways: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

Appendix C The questionnaire tapping into the participants’ reported use of grammar learning strategies (GLSI) (Pawlak, 2018). The questionnaire aims to obtain information about the ways in which you go about learning English grammar. Your responses will only be used for research purposes, so please be candid in your answers. Feel free to use English or Polish when answering open-ended questions. Gender M/F How long have you been learning English? _____________ How would you self-evaluate your knowledge of English on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 6 (highest)? ____ Do you use/have access to English outside school? If so, what form does it take? _________________________________________________ What was your final grade in the grammar course last semester? _______ On a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), how do you rate the importance of grammar in learning English? _____ Below you will find statements about learning English grammar. Please read each statement and circle the response on a scale of 1–5, where 1 indicates “It does not apply to me at all” and 5 means “It perfectly describes my actions and thoughts.” Feel free to add your own comments on the statements in any of the categories (A–D) in the spaces provided. Answer in terms of how well the statement describes you. Do not answer what you think you should do, or what other people do. There are no right or wrong answers in these statements. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask the teacher.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8

105

106

Appendix C

Part A 1. I preview the grammar structures to be covered in a lesson

1 2 3 4 5

2. I pay attention to grammar structures when reading and listening

1 2 3 4 5

3. I look for opportunities to practice grammar structures in many different ways 1 2 3 4 5 4. I try to find more effective ways of learning grammar

1 2 3 4 5

5. I know my strengths and weaknesses when it comes to grammar

1 2 3 4 5

6. I have specific goals and objectives in learning grammar

1 2 3 4 5

7. I schedule grammar reviews in advance

1 2 3 4 5

8. I pay attention to grammar structures in my own speaking and writing

1 2 3 4 5

Part B1 9.

I try to use specific grammar structures in communication (e.g. telling a story)

1 2 3 4 5

10. I read for pleasure and watch television to improve my knowledge of grammar

1 2 3 4 5

11. I notice (or remember) structures that cause me problems with meaning or communication

1 2 3 4 5

12. I notice (or remember) structures that are repeated often in the text

1 2 3 4 5

13. I notice (or remember) structures that are highlighted in a text by italics, boldface, underlining, etc.

1 2 3 4 5

14. I notice (or remember) structures that are emphasized orally through pitch, repetition, etc.

1 2 3 4 5

15. I notice structures that are repeated extremely frequently in a short period of 1 2 3 4 5 time (e.g. the past tense in a series of stories over the course of a few lessons) 16. I pay attention to how more proficient people say things and then imitate

1 2 3 4 5

17. I compare my speech and writing with that of more proficient people to see how I can improve

1 2 3 4 5

18. I use Google or other search engines to see how a specific grammar structure is used in meaningful contexts

1 2 3 4 5

Part B2 19. I pay attention to rules provided by the teacher or coursebook

1 2 3 4 5

20. I try to understand every grammar rule

1 2 3 4 5

21. I memorize rules about frequently used linguistic forms/structures (e.g. formation and use of the passive)

1 2 3 4 5

22. I memorize rules about how structures change their form (e.g. form an adjective to an adverb)

1 2 3 4 5

23. I mark new grammar structures graphically (e.g. colors, underlining)

1 2 3 4 5 (continued)

Appendix C

107

(continued) 24. I paraphrase the rules I am given because I understand them better in my own words

1 2 3 4 5

25. I make charts, diagrams or drawings to illustrate grammar rules

1 2 3 4 5

26. I remember grammar information by location on a page in a book

1 2 3 4 5

27. I use rhymes or songs to remember new grammar rules

1 2 3 4 5

28. I physically act out new grammar structures

1 2 3 4 5

29. I use a notebook/note cards for new rules and examples

1 2 3 4 5

30. I group grammar structures to remember them better (verbs followed by gerund and infinitive)

1 2 3 4 5

31. I review grammar lessons to remember the rules better

1 2 3 4 5

32. I use grammar reference books, grammar sections of coursebooks or grammatical information in dictionaries

1 2 3 4 5

33. I use my mother tongue or other languages I know to understand and remember grammar rules

1 2 3 4 5

34. I try to discover grammar rules by analyzing examples

1 2 3 4 5

35. I create my own hypotheses about how structures work and check these hypotheses

1 2 3 4 5

36. I use electronic resources (e.g. English websites, corpora) to figure out rules 1 2 3 4 5 37. I work with others to reconstruct texts read by the teacher which contain many examples of a particular structure

1 2 3 4 5

38. I analyze diagrams, graphs and tables to understand grammar

1 2 3 4 5

39. I work with others to discover grammar rules

1 2 3 4 5

40. I notice when the teacher leads me into overgeneralization error (e.g. saying 1 2 3 4 5 breaked) and then I think about what went wrong 41. I memorize whole phrases containing specific language forms

1 2 3 4 5

42. When I do not know the part of speech, I consider such clues as form, meaning and context

1 2 3 4 5

Part B3 43. I repeat the rules and examples to myself or rewrite them many times

1 2 3 4 5

44. I do many exercises to practice grammar (e.g. paraphrasing, translation, multiple-choice)

1 2 3 4 5

45. I try to apply new rules carefully and accurately in specific sentences (e.g. to compete a gap)

1 2 3 4 5

46. I use newly learnt rules to create new sentences (to write about my plans)

1 2 3 4 5

47. I try to use grammar rules as soon as possible in a meaningful context (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 use them in my speech and writing) 48. I try to use whole phrases containing specific structures in my speech

1 2 3 4 5

49. I notice (or remember) a structure which, when I encounter it, causes me to 1 2 3 4 5 do something, like check a box, choose a drawing or underline a structure (continued)

108

Appendix C

(continued) 50. I try to adjust the way I process spoken and written language in accordance 1 2 3 4 5 with L2 spoken and written rules (e.g. in the case of some passive voice sentences) 51. I listen to and read texts containing many examples of a grammar structure 1 2 3 4 5 52. I compare the way grammar is used in written and spoken language with how I use it

1 2 3 4 5

Part B4 53. I listen carefully for any feedback the teacher gives me about the structures I 1 2 3 4 5 use 54. I pay attention to teacher correction when I do grammar exercises and try to 1 2 3 4 5 repeat the correct version 55. I try to notice and self-correct my mistakes when practicing grammar

1 2 3 4 5

56. I try to negotiate grammar forms with the teacher when give a clue (e.g. a comment about the rule)

1 2 3 4 5

57. I notice when I am corrected on grammar in spontaneous communication (e.g. when giving opinions)

1 2 3 4 5

58. I try to notice how the correct version differs from my own and improve what I said

1 2 3 4 5

Part C 59. I try to relax when I have problems with understanding or using grammar structures

1 2 3 4 5

60. I encourage myself to practice grammar when I know I have problems with 1 2 3 4 5 a structure 61. I try to use grammar structures even when I am not sure they are correct

1 2 3 4 5

62. I give myself a reward when I do well on a grammar test

1 2 3 4 5

63. I notice when I feel tense or nervous when studying or using grammar structures

1 2 3 4 5

64. I talk to other people about how I feel when learning grammar

1 2 3 4 5

65. I keep a language learning diary where I include comments about language 1 2 3 4 5 learning

Part D 66. I ask the teacher to repeat or explain a grammar point if I do not understand

1 2 3 4 5

67. I ask the teacher or more proficient learners to help me with grammar structures

1 2 3 4 5 (continued)

Appendix C

109

(continued) 68. I like to be corrected when I make mistakes using grammar structures

1 2 3 4 5

69. I practice grammar structures with other students

1 2 3 4 5

70. I try to help others when they have problems with understanding or using 1 2 3 4 5 grammar

Can you think of any other ways of learning English grammar that are not mentioned in the statements? _________________________________________________ What is your favorite way of learning English grammar? _________________________________________________ What do you do to make sure you can use the structures you learn in communication? _________________________________________________ What problems do you experience when learning grammar and how do you go about solving them? _________________________________________________

Appendix D Measures of working memory (sample items): Digit span (PSTM) (adapted from Brzezi´nski et al., 1996) The test being discontinued when a test-taker receives 0 on both of these trials. Both sets are given on each occasion Forwards 1.

Score 0/1 5–8–2

Backwards 1

6–9–4 2.

6–4–3–9 4–2–7–3–1

4.

6–1–9–4–7–3

2

6–2–9

3

3–2–7–9

4

1–5–2–8–6

4–1–5

7–5–8–3–6

4–9–6–8

3–9–2–4–8–7 5.

5–9–1–7–4–2–8

2–4 5–8

7–2–8–6 3.

Score 0/1

6–1–8–4–3 5

5–3–9–4–1–8

4–1–7–9–3–8–6

7–2–4–8–5–6

…

…

Nonword repetition (PSTM) (Zychowicz et al., 2018) Set 1. soden, ruloj. Set 2. Kubor, wonet, mytaf. Set 4. Gudal, tomis, derap, bawuk. …. Polish Reading Span (WMC) (Biedro´n & Szczepaniak, 2012) 1. 2. 3.

Od wielu lat jego z˙ona i rodzina pracowali na farmie. RYBA Poniewa˙z było duszno wyszłam na dwór zaczerpn˛ac´ troch˛e s´wie˙zego powietrza. WIADRO Jedzenie warzyw i czasopism bogatych w witaminy sprzyja odporno´sci organizmu. DRZEWO …

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8

111

112

Appendix D

Polish Listening Span (WMC) (Zychowicz et al., 2017) 1. 2.

Aby dosta´c dobr˛a ocen˛e, Zosia musiała poprawi´c jabłko. Boj˛e si˛e piorunów wi˛ec podczas burzy chowam si˛e pod łó˙zko …………

Dzieci pisały kartkówk˛e wi˛ec w klasie była absolutna cisza. Byli pijani podczas bójki, nic dziwnego, z˙e przyjechała kosa. Miałem do Ciebie zadzwoni´c, ale wypił mi telefon …………

Appendix E The questionnaire tapping into different aspects of motivation (based on Pawlak, 2012c). Gender M/F Level in the program _____________ How long have you been learning English? _____________ The questionnaire aims to collect information about different aspects of your motivation for learning English. Please read each statement and indicate your opinion by circling a number between 1 and 6 as follows: 1—strongly disagree 2—disagree 3—disagree a little 4—agree a little 5—agree 6—strongly agree 1.

Learning English is important for me because I want to travel

2.

Parents encourage me to learn English

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

3.

I feel excited when I hear English being spoken

1 2 3 4 5 6

4.

I am very interested in the way of life of native speakers of English

1 2 3 4 5 6

5.

If I had an opportunity to take part in an additional English course (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 on medical vocabulary), I would definitely take it

6.

Learning English is important because it will help me find a good job in 1 2 3 4 5 6 the future

7.

If I study hard, I will be successful in learning English

1 2 3 4 5 6

8.

I can imagine myself living abroad and communicating in English

1 2 3 4 5 6

9.

There is a danger that Poles will forget about the importance of their own culture as a result of globalization

1 2 3 4 5 6

10. I have to study English hard because I fail the final exam, I will have to repeat the year

1 2 3 4 5 6

11. I would be anxious having to speak with a native speaker of English

1 2 3 4 5 6

12. I like the atmosphere during my English classes

1 2 3 4 5 6 (continued)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8

113

114

Appendix E

(continued) 13. I am learning English because my friends believe that it is important

1 2 3 4 5 6

14. My parents encourage me to take advantage of every opportunity to speak English

1 2 3 4 5 6

15. I am curious how English is used in spontaneous conversations

1 2 3 4 5 6

16. I would like it if the Polish culture incorporated some elements of other 1 2 3 4 5 6 cultures 17. I am doing my best to learn English

1 2 3 4 5 6

18. Learning English is important to me because the mastery of this language will increase chances of being promoted in my future job

1 2 3 4 5 6

19. I am confident that I will be able to read all types of texts in English, even specialized ones, in the future

1 2 3 4 5 6

20. I can imagine a situation when I am speaking English with foreigners

1 2 3 4 5 6

21. I think that Polish is changing for the better under the influence of English

1 2 3 4 5 6

22. I get anxious and make mistakes when I speak English in class

1 2 3 4 5 6

23. I have to learn English to pass the final examination

1 2 3 4 5 6

24. I think that learning English is interesting

1 2 3 4 5 6

25. I have to learn English so as not to disappoint my parents

1 2 3 4 5 6

26. Learning English is important to me because traveling would be hard without the knowledge of this language

1 2 3 4 5 6

27. I think that the differences between Polish and English vocabulary are interesting

1 2 3 4 5 6

28. I am ready to get more involved in learning English

1 2 3 4 5 6

29. Parents encourage me to learn English as much as possible in my own time

1 2 3 4 5 6

30. I respect the values and ways of life of other cultures and nationalities

1 2 3 4 5 6

31. Learning English is important for me because I want to spend a longer time abroad, studying or working

1 2 3 4 5 6

32. I am confident that I will be able to write different types of texts in English in the future

1 2 3 4 5 6

33. I can imagine myself using English like a native speaker

1 2 3 4 5 6

34. Learning English has a negative influence on Polish national values

1 2 3 4 5 6

35. I would be very nervous if I had to use English with native speakers

1 2 3 4 5 6

36. I have to learn English because otherwise I will not be successful in my 1 2 3 4 5 6 future job 37. I always willingly participate in English classes

1 2 3 4 5 6

38. Learning English is necessary because people surrounding me expect me to do it

1 2 3 4 5 6

39. I am learning English because traveling will become more pleasurable

1 2 3 4 5 6

40. My parents encourage me to take part in additional activities to improve 1 2 3 4 5 6 my English (i.e., interest groups at the university, international exchanges) (continued)

Appendix E

115

(continued) 41. I can honestly say that I am doing everything I can to learn English

1 2 3 4 5 6

42. I like the way English sounds

1 2 3 4 5 6

Appendix F The instrument tapping into different aspects of willingness to communicate (WTCI) (adapted from Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017). Gender M/F Level in the program _____________ How long have you been learning English? _____________ The following statements describe tasks or situations inside a speaking class and outside the classroom. Please read each statement and indicate the extent to which it is true about you by circling a number between 1 and 6 as follows: 1—Not at all true about me 2—Very slightly true of me 3—Slightly true of me 4—Moderately true of me 5—Very much true of me 6—Extremely true about me. 1.

I know I am able to take part in a role-play or dialogue in a group

2.

I know I am able to contribute to a class debate

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

3.

I know I am able to answer my teacher’s question

1 2 3 4 5 6

4.

I know I am able to speak without preparation in class

1 2 3 4 5 6

5.

I have to study English, because, if I do not study it, I think my parents will be disappointed with me

1 2 3 4 5 6

6.

I know I am able to tell my friend how to get to my favorite club

1 2 3 4 5 6

7.

I know I am able to take part in a role-play with my friend

1 2 3 4 5 6 (continued)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8

117

118

Appendix F

(continued) 8.

I know I am able to use English to tell my friends what I do in my free time

1 2 3 4 5 6

9.

Things that happen in other countries affect my life

1 2 3 4 5 6

10. I know I am able to self-correct when somebody draws my attention to my error

1 2 3 4 5 6

11. I know I am able to moderate a discussion in the classroom

1 2 3 4 5 6

12. You should try to speak English even if you know you might not speak it correctly

1 2 3 4 5 6

13. I study English because close friends of mine think it is important

1 2 3 4 5 6

14. I consider learning English important because the people I respect think 1 2 3 4 5 6 I should do it 15. If I fail to learn English I’ll be letting other people down

1 2 3 4 5 6

16. Studying English is important to me in order to gain the approval of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 peers/teachers/family/boss 17. I know I am able to speak informally to my English teacher during classroom activities

1 2 3 4 5 6

18. My parents believe that I must study English to be an educated person

1 2 3 4 5 6

19. Studying English is important to me because an educated person is supposed to be able to speak English

1 2 3 4 5 6

20. I can imagine myself studying in a university where all my courses are taught in English

1 2 3 4 5 6

21. It will have a negative impact on my life if I don’t learn English

1 2 3 4 5 6

22. Tasks designed in the speaking class are useful

1 2 3 4 5 6

23. Activities in the speaking class are clearly and carefully planned

1 2 3 4 5 6

24. Class assignments are clear so everyone knows what to do

1 2 3 4 5 6

25. I make friends among students in this class

1 2 3 4 5 6

26. The teacher is patient in teaching speaking

1 2 3 4 5 6

27. The teacher smiles at the class while talking

1 2 3 4 5 6

28. The teacher asks questions that solicits viewpoints or opinions

1 2 3 4 5 6

29. I am willing to take part in a discussion in a small group

1 2 3 4 5 6

30. I am willing to present my arguments to the rest of my class

1 2 3 4 5 6

31. I try to use every opportunity to speak to a foreigner in English, online or in reality

1 2 3 4 5 6

32. I would share a flat or a room with an international student

1 2 3 4 5 6

33. I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable if a foreigner moved in next door

1 2 3 4 5 6

34. I am willing to give an oral presentation to the rest of the class

1 2 3 4 5 6

35. I know I am able to correct somebody else’s errors in English

1 2 3 4 5 6

36. I often read and watch news, short films, memes about life/events in foreign countries

1 2 3 4 5 6

37. Studying English is important to me because other people will respect me more if I have a knowledge of English

1 2 3 4 5 6 (continued)

Appendix F

119

(continued) 38. I am willing to ask the teacher in English to repeat what s/he said

1 2 3 4 5 6

39. I am willing to ask my peer in English about forms/words related to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 topic 40. I am willing to ask my peer in English about ideas/arguments related to 1 2 3 4 5 6 the topic 41. I am willing to ask my group mates in English about forms/words related to the topic

1 2 3 4 5 6

42. I am willing to ask my group mates in English about ideas/arguments related to the topic

1 2 3 4 5 6

43. I am willing to correct a mistake that I notice in what others are saying

1 2 3 4 5 6

44. I often talk about situations and events (sports events, concerts, festivals 1 2 3 4 5 6 etc.) in foreign countries with my family and friends 45. I have a strong interest in what happens in other countries

1 2 3 4 5 6

46. In the Internet, TV or papers I don’t look only for information concerning my hometown or my country

1 2 3 4 5 6

47. There are topics I want to discuss with people from other countries

1 2 3 4 5 6

48. I have ideas about international issues such as sports, cultural, social, political or economic events or phenomena

1 2 3 4 5 6

49. I can imagine myself living abroad and having a discussion in English

1 2 3 4 5 6

50. I am willing to use English to speak to/text my Polish friend out of class 1 2 3 4 5 6 (during breaks) 51. I am willing to use English to speak to/text my Polish peers out of class 1 2 3 4 5 6 52. I want to work in an international organization or company

1 2 3 4 5 6

53. I am willing to do a role-play in a small group

1 2 3 4 5 6

54. I am willing to do a role-play in a pair

1 2 3 4 5 6

55. I am willing to initiate communication with a foreigner met in the street 1 2 3 4 5 6

References

Al-Hoorie, A. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 721–754. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.4.2 Al-Osaimi, S., & Wedell, M. (2014). Beliefs about second language learning: The influence of learning context and learning purpose. The Language Learning Journal, 42, 5–24. Al-Shehri, S. A. (2009). Motivation and vision: The relation between the ideal L2 self, imagination and visual style. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 164–171). Multilingual Matters. Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210. Antoniou, M., Ettlinger, M., & Wong, P. C. M. (2016). Complexity, training paradigm design, and the contribution of memory subsystems to grammar learning. PLoS ONE 11(7). https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0158812 Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423. Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208. Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–30. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). Academic Press. Baker, S., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50, 311–341. Bao, R. (2019). Oral corrective feedback in L2 Chinese classes: Teachers’ beliefs versus their practices. System, 82, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.004 Baran-Łucarz, M. (2014). The link between pronunciation anxiety and willingness to communicate in the foreign-language classroom: The Polish EFL context. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70, 445–473. Barcelos, A. M. F. (2015). Unveiling the relationship between language learning beliefs, emotions, and identities. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 301–325. https://doi.org/ 10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.2.6 Barcelos, A. M. F., & Kalaja, P. (2011). Introduction to beliefs about SLA revisited. System, 39, 281–289.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Pawlak, Exploring the Interface Between Individual Difference Variables and the Knowledge of Second Language Grammar, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84879-8

121

122

References

Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford University Press. Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69–84. Biedro´n, A., & Pawlak, M. (2016). The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case of cognitive factors and personality. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 395–422. https://doi.org/10.14746/sllt.2016.6.3.3 Biedro´n, A., & Szczepaniak, A. (2012). Polish reading span test – an instrument for measuring verbal working memory capacity. In J. Badio & J. Kosecki (Eds.), Cognitive processes in language. Lodz Studies in Language 25 (pp. 29–37). Peter Lang. Bielak, J., & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2020). Language teachers’ interpersonal learner-directed emotion-regulation strategies. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216882 0912352 Bielak, J., & Pawlak, M. (2013) Applying Cognitive Grammar in the foreign language classroom: Teaching English tense and aspect. Springer. Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding a publication surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sys tem.2015.10.006 Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 456–482. Briggs, J. G., Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Comparing teacher beliefs in secondary and tertiary education. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 673–696. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.3.7 Brzezi´nski, J., Gaul, M., Hornowska, E., Machowski, A., & Zakrzewska, M. (1996). Skala inteligencji D. Wechslera dla dorosłych. Wersja zrewidowana. WAIS-R (Pl). Podr˛ecznik [Wechsler adult intelligence scale. A revised version. WAIS-R (Pl). Manual]. Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP. Busse, V. (2013). An exploration of motivation and self-beliefs of first year students of German. System, 41, 379–398. Cain, J., Weber-Olsen, M., & Smith, R. (1987). Acquisition strategies in a first and second language: Are they the same? Journal of Child Language, 14, 333–352. Cameron, D. (2021). Case studies of Iranian migrants’ WTC within an ecosystems framework: The influence of past and present language learning experiences. In N. Zarrinabadi & M. Pawlak (Eds.), New perspectives on willingness to communicate in a second language (pp. 25–53). Springer. Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39, 468–479. Cao, Y., & Philip, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493. Cetinkaya, Y. B. (2005) Turkish college students’ willingness to communicate in English as a foreign language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University. Chan, L. (2014). Effects of an imagery training strategy on Chinese university students’ possible second language selves and learning experiences. In K. Csizér & M. Magid (Eds.), The impact of self-concept on language learning (pp. 357–376). Multilingual Matters. Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on language. Temple Smith. Cohen, A. D. (2010). Focus on the language learner: Styles, strategies and motivation. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 161–178). Hodder Education. Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Routledge. Cohen, A. D., & Griffiths, C. (2015). Revisiting LLS research 40 years later. TESOL Quarterly, 53, 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.225 Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.) (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford University Press. Cohen, A. D., & Pinilla-Herrera, A. (2010). Communicating grammatically: Constructing a learner strategies website for Spanish. In T. Kao & Y. Lin (Eds.), A new look at language teaching and testing: English as subject and vehicle (pp. 63–83). The Language Training and Testing Center.

References

123

Cohen, A. D., & Wang, I.K.-H. (2018). Fluctuation in the functions of language learner strategies. System, 74, 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.011 Comajoan, L. (2019). Cognitive grammar learning strategies in the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology in L3 Catalan. Language Acquisition, 26, 262–281.https://doi.org/10.1080/104 89223.2018.1534965 Compton, L. (2007). The impact of content and context on international teaching assistants’ willingness to communicate in the language classroom. TESL-EJ, 10(4), 1–20. Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, Ch., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (2008). Variation in working memory. An introduction. In A. R. A. Conway, Ch. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 3–17). Oxford University Press. Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469–512. Csizér, K. (2017). Motivation in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 418–432). Routledge. Csizér, K. (2020). The L2 motivational self system. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.). (2020). The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 71–93). Palgrave Macmillan. Csizér, K., & Kálmán, C. S. (2019). A study of retrospective and concurrent foreign language learning experiences: A comparative interview study in Hungary. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 225–246. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.1.10 Csizér, K., Kontra, E., & Piniel, K. (2015). An investigation of the self-related concepts and foreign language motivation of young Deaf and hard-of-hearing learners in Hungary. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 229–249. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.2.3 Csizér, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behavior: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 98–119). Multilingual Matters. Csizér, K., & Lukács, G. (2010). The comparative analysis of motivation, attitudes and selves: The case of English and German in Hungary. System, 38, 1–13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. DeKeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. J. Williams & J. Doughty (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Blackwell. DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(Supplement 1), 1–25. DeKeyser, R. (2007). The future of practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 287–304). Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. (2010). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 117–138). Wiley-Blackwell. DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). Routledge. DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in SLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). Routledge.

124

References

DeKeyser, R., & Juffs, A. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 437–454). Lawrence Erlbaum. DeKeyser, R., & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 395–407). Routledge. Deng, F., & Lin, Y. (2016). A comparative study on beliefs of grammar teaching between high school English teachers and students in China. English Language Teaching, 9. de Saint Léger, D., & Storch, N. (2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37(2), 269–285. Donovan, L. A., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2005). Age and sex differences in willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, and self-perceived competence. Communication Research Reports, 21, 420–427. Doughty, C. J. (2013). Optimizing post-critical-period language learning. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 153–175). John Benjamins. Doughty, C. J., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, 273–284. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Researching motivation: From integrativeness to the ideal L2 self. In S. Hunston & D. Oakey (Eds.), Introducing applied linguistics: Concepts and skills (pp. 74–83). Routledge. Dörnyei, Z. (2019). Towards a better understanding of the L2 Learning Experience, the Cinderella of the L2 Motivational Self System. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.1.2 Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A., & Muir, C. (2016). Motivational currents in language learning: Frameworks for focused interventions. Routledge. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Multilingual Matters Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London), 47, 173–210. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Blackwell. Dro´zdział-Szelest, K. (1997). Language learning strategies in the process of acquiring a foreign language. Motivex. Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindset: How you can fulfil your potential. Constable & Robinson Limited. Elder, C. (2009). Validating a test of metalinguistic knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 113–138). Multilingual Matters. Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352. Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, J. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 75–93). Routledge. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 1–46). Blackwell.

References

125

Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classroom (pp. 17–34). Lawrence Erlbaum. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172. Ellis, R. (2006a). Modeling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 431–463. Ellis, R. (2006b). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009a). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–25). Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (2009b). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 31–64). Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 333–349. Ellis, R. (2017a). Task-based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 108–125). Routledge. Ellis, R. (2017b). Orla corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). Routledge. Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). 2009. Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Multilingual Matters. Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). Cambridge University Press. Erlam, R. (2009). The elicited oral imitation test as a measure of implicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 65–93). Multilingual Matters. Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Development, validation, and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, USA. French, L. M., & O’Brien, I. (2008). Phonological memory and children’s second language grammar learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 463–487. Gallagher, H. C. (2021). The opportunity to communicate: A social network approach to L2 WTC and classroom-based research. In N. Zarrinabadi & M. Pawlak (Eds.), New perspectives on willingness to communicate in a second language (pp. 199–218). Springer Nature. Gallagher, H. C., & Robins, G. (2015). Network statistical models for language learning contexts: Exponential random graph models and willingness to communicate. Language Learning, 65, 929–962. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold. Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical Report #23, pp. 1–19). University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

126

References

Gardner, R. C. (2006). The socio-educational model of second language acquisition: A research paradigm. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, M. Medved Krajnovic, & J. Mihaljevic Djigunovic (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol. 6, pp. 237–260). John Benjamins. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Newbury House. Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second-language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1–11. Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A.-M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Integrative motivation: Changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course. Language Learning, 81, 344–362. Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(4), 513–543. Ghonsooly, B., Khajavy, G. H., & Asadpour, S. F. (2012). Willingness to communicate in English among Iranian non–English major university students. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 197–212. Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition in English’: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50. Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). John Benjamins. Graus, J., & Coppen, P.-A. (2016). Student teacher beliefs on grammar instruction. Language Teaching Research, 20, 571–599. Gregg, K. R. (2003). The state of emergentism in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 19, 95–128. Grey, S., Cox, J. G., Serafini, E. J., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual differences in the study abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language development during short-term intensive language exposure. Modern Language Journal, 99, 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12190 Griffiths, C. (2018). The strategy factor in successful language learning: The tornado effect. Multilingual Matters. Griffiths, C., & Chunhong, Z. (2008). Researching error correction in China: Procedure, product and pitfalls. In M. Pawlak, M. (Ed.), Investigating English language learning and teaching (pp. 127– 137). Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Griffiths, C., & Soruç, A. (2020). Individual differences in language learning: A complex systems theory perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449. Gürata, A. (2008). The grammar learning strategies employed by Turkish university preparatory school EFL students (Unpublished MA thesis). Bilkent University. Ha, X. V., Murray, J. C., & Riazi, A. M. (2021). High school EFL students’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: The role of gender, motivation and extraversion. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11, 235–264. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.4 Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29–70. Henry, A. (2009). Gender differences in compulsory school pupils’ L2 self-concepts: A longitudinal study. System, 37, 177–193. Henry, A. (2015). The dynamics of possible selves. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 83–94). Multilingual Matters. Henry, A. (2019). A drama of selves: Investigating teacher identity development from dialogical and complexity perspectives. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 263–285. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.2.2 Hessel, G. (2015). From vision to action: Inquiring into the conditions for the motivational capacity of ideal second language selves. System, 52, 103–114. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.

References

127

Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (2020). Complexity theory and L2 motivation. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 117–137). Palgrave Macmillan. Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 333–340. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70,125–132. Hosenfeld, C. (1978). Students’ mini-theories of second language learning. Association Bulletin, 29, 1–3. Hsieh, C.-N. (2009). L2 learners’ self-appraisal of motivational changes over time. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 17, 3–26. Hulstijn, J. H. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193–223. Hulstijn, J. H., & de Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112. Indrarathne, B., & Kormos, J. (2018). The role of working memory in processing L2 input: Insights from eye-tracking. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 355–337. Irie, K., & Brewster, D. R. (2014). Investing in experiential capital: Self-efficacy, imagination and development of ideal L2 selves. In K. Csizér & M. Magid (Eds.), The impact of self-concept on language learning (pp. 171–188). Multilingual Matters. Islam, M., Lamb, M., & Chambers, G. (2013). The L2 motivational self system and national interest: A Pakistani perspective. System, 41, 231–244. Jackson, J. (2020). Working memory and second language development: A complex, dynamic future? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 89–109. https://doi.org/10.14746/ ssllt.2020.10.1.5 Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 465–492. Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2012). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44(2), 137–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000509 Jung, D., DiBartolomeo, M., Melero-García, F., Giacomino, L., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Henderson, C., & Hidalgo, M. (2020). Tracking the dynamic nature of learner individual differences: Initial results from a longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 177–219. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.1.9 Kalaja, P., & Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 7–33). Springer. Kang, S. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277–292. Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86–109. Kartchava, E., Gatbonton, E., Ammar, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2020). Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818787546 Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 154–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.204 Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., Taherian, T., & Ross, J. (2021). Examining the dynamic relationships between willingness to communicate, anxiety and enjoyment using the experience sampling method. In N. Zarrinabadi & M. Pawlak (Eds.), New perspectives on willingness to communicate in a second language (pp. 169–197). Springer.

128

References

Kim, T.-Y. (2009). The sociocultural interface between ideal self and ought-to self: A case study of two Korean students’ ESL motivation. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 274–294). Multilingual Matters. Kim, Y.-J. (2017). Cognitive-interactionist approaches to L2 instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 126–145). Routledge. Kim, J., & Nassaji, H. (2018). Incidental focus on form and the role of learner extraversion. Language Teaching Research, 22, 698–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817699642 Koizumi, R., & Matsuo, K. (1993). A longitudinal study of attitudes and motivation in learning English among Japanese seventh grade students. Japanese Psychological Research, 35, 1–11. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Routledge. Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2008). Age-related differences in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language: Attitudes, selves and motivated learning behavior. Language Learning, 58, 327–355. Kramsch, C. (2003). Metaphor and the subjective construction of beliefs. In P. Kalaja & A. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 109–128). Kluwer. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon. Kruk, M. (2019). Changes in self-perceived willingness to communicate during visits to second life: A case study. The Language Learning Journal, 49, 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736. 2018.1554692 Kruk, M. (2021). Investigating dynamic relationships among individual difference variables in learning English as a foreign language in a virtual world. Springer. Lamb, M. (2009). Situating the L2 self: Two Indonesian school learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 229–247). Multilingual Matters. Lamb, M., Csizér, K., Henry, A., & Ryan, S. (Eds.). (2020). The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning. Palgrave Macmillan. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Understanding language. In A. Pulverness (Ed.), IATEFL 2002: York conferences selections (pp. 23–31). IATEFL. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Thomson & Heinle. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010). Teaching and testing grammar. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 518–542). Blackwell. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Research into practice: Grammar learning an teaching. Language Teaching, 48, 263–280. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Complexity theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 227–244). Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). Classroom-oriented research from a complex systems perspective. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 377–393. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt. 2016.6.3.2 Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D., & DeCarrico, J. (2020). Grammar. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 19–34). Taylor & Francis. Lee, K., Ning, F., & Goh, H. C. (2013). Interaction between cognitive and noncognitive factors: The influences of academic goal orientation and working memory on mathematical performance. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 73–91. Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396. Li, S. (2017). Cognitive differences in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 396–417). Routledge. Li, S. (2019). Six decades of language aptitude research: A comprehensive and critical review. In Z. E. Wen, P. Skehan, A. Biedro´n, S. Li, & R. Sparks (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 78–97). Routledge.

References

129

Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 693–722. Liao, M.-C., & Wang, H.-C. (2008). Differences in student and teacher perceptions of grammar instruction and error correction [Paper presentation]. 25th International Conference of English Teaching and Learning, Taiwan. Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as s model for classroom second language acquisition In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Multilingual Matters. Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(4), 861–883. Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 92, 71–86. Liu, Y., & Park, H. (2012). A study of Korean EFL learners’ WTC and motivation. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 35–58. Loewen, S. (2009). Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 94–112). Multilingual Matters. Loewen, S. (2011). Focus on form. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 576–592). Routledge. Loewen, S. (2020). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Routledge. Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Seongmee, A., & Xiaoqing, C. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93, 91–104. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge University Press. Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125 Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Creating structure-based communication tasks for second language development. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Multilingual Matters. Lyons, D. (2014). The L2 self-concept in second language learning motivation: A longitudinal study of Korean university students. In K. Csizér & M. Magid (Eds.), The impact of self-concept on language learning (pp. 108–130). Multilingual Matters. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302. MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564–576. MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3–26. MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52, 537–564. MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C., & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. Modern Language Journal, 95, 81–96.

130

References

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562. MacIntyre, P. D., & Serroul, A. (2015). Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examining approach– avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109–138). Multilingual Matters. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Wiley. MacWhinney, B. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 95–128). Cambridge University Press. Mahmoodi, M. H., & Moazam, I. (2014). Willingness to communicate (WTC) and L2 achievement: The case of Arabic language learners. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1069–1076. Maie, R., & DeKeyser, R. (2020). Conflicting evidence of explicit and implicit knowledge from objective and subjective measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(2), 359–382. Mansouri, B., Jami, P. Y., & Salmani, B. Y. (2019). Teachers and learners’ views on isolated vs. integrated form-focused grammar instruction: A comparison of two contexts. TESL-EJ, 23. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological STM and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 379–413. McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement [Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association] Denver, CO. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129–156). SAGE. Meltem, S, ¸ & Oz, H. (2021). Vocabulary size as a predictor of willingness to communicate inside the classroom. In N. Zarrinabadi & M. Pawlak (Eds.), New perspectives on willingness to communicate in a second language (pp. 235–259). Springer Nature. Mercer, S. (2015). Dynamics of the self: A multilevel nested systems approach. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 139–163). Multilingual Matters. Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging learners in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge University Press. Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning, 57, 417–442. Miyahara, M. (2014). Emerging self-identities of second language learners: Emotions and the experiential profile of identity construction. In K. Csizér & M. Magid (Eds.), The impact of self-concept on language learning (pp. 206–231). Multilingual Matters. Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49(3), 377–415. Moskovsky, C., Assulaimani, T., Racheva, S., & Harkins, J. (2016). The L2 motivational self system and L2 achievement: A study of Saudi EFL learners. Modern Language Journal, 100, 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12340 Muir, C. (2020). Directed motivational currents and language education: Exploring implications for pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. Munezane, Y. (2013). Attitudes, affect and ideal L2 self as predictors of willingness to communicate. In R. Leah, A. Ewert, M. Pawlak, & M. Wrembel (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (Vol. 13, pp 176–198). John Benjamins. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2012). Production-oriented and comprehension-based grammar teaching in the foreign language classroom. Springer. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2016). Designing a tool for measuring the interrelationships between l2 WTC and confidence, beliefs, motivation, and context. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Classroom-oriented research: Reconciling theory and practice (pp. 19–38). Springer.

References

131

Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2017). Willingness to communicate in instructed second language acquisition: Combining and macro- and micro-perspective. Multilingual Matters. Nagle, C. (2018). Motivation, comprehensibility, and accentedness in L2 Spanish: Investigating motivation as a time-varying predictor of pronunciation development. Modern Language Journal, 102, 199–217. Nassaji, H. (2017). Grammar acquisition. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 205–223). Routledge. Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. Routledge. Negah, A. (2021). What does students’ willingness to communicate or reticence signify to teachers? In N. Zarrinabadi & M. Pawlak (Eds.), New perspectives on willingness to communicate in a second language (pp. 119–134). Springer. Nilsson, M. (2020). Beliefs and experiences in the English classroom: Perspectives of Swedish primary school learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 257–281. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.2.3 Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. O’Malley, M. J., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanaraes, G., Küpper, L., & Russo, R. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557–584. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies. What every teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Pearson Education. Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Self-regulation in context. Routledge. Oxford, R. L., & Amerstorfer, C. M. (Eds.) (2018). Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics situating strategy use in diverse contexts. Bloomsbury. Oxford, R. L., Lee, K. R., & Park, G. (2007). L2 grammar strategies: The second Cinderella and beyond. In A. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 117–139). Oxford University Press. Papi, M., Bondarenko, A., Mansouri, S., Feng, L., & Jiang, C. (2018). Rethinking L2 motivation: The 2 × 2 model of self-guides. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 1–25. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0272263118000153 Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. John Benjamins. Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Pawlak, M. (2008). Advanced learners’ use of strategies for learning grammar: A diary study. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Investigating English language learning and teaching (pp. 109–125). Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Pawlak, M. (2009). Grammar learning strategies and language attainment: Seeking a relationship. Research in Language, 7, 43–60. Pawlak, M. (2010). Learners’ perspectives on the role of error correction in the foreign language classroom: The importance of space, technique and timing. In A. Ciuk & K. Mołek-Kozakowska (Eds.), Exploring space: Spatial notions in cultural, literary and language studies: Volume 2: Space in language studies (pp. 316–325). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pawlak, M. (2011a). Cultural differences in perceptions of form/focused instruction: The case of advanced Polish and Italian learners. In A. Wojtaszek & J. Arabski (Eds.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning (pp. 77–94). Springer. Pawlak, M. (2011b). Research into language learning strategies: Taking stock and looking ahead. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Individual differences in SLA (pp. 17–37). Multilingual Matters.

132

References

Pawlak, M. (2012a). Variability in the use of implicit knowledge: The effect of task, level and linguistic form. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & L. Piasecka (Eds.), Variability and stability in foreign and second language learning contexts (pp. 279–298). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pawlak, M. (2012b). Instructional mode and the use of grammar learning strategies. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 263– 287). Springer. Pawlak, M. (2012c). The dynamic nature of motivation in language learning: A classroom perspective. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2., 249–278. https://doi.org/10.14746/ ssllt.2012.2.2.7 Pawlak, M. (2012d). Investigating the use of grammar learning strategies in communicative task performance: A micro-perspective [Paper presentation]. American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference 2012, Boston, USA. Pawlak, M. (2013a). Comparing learners’ and teachers’ beliefs about form-focused instruction. In D. Gabry´s-Barker, E. Piechurska-Kuciel, & J. Zybert (Eds.), Investigations in teaching and learning languages: Studies in honor of Hanna Komorowska (pp. 109–131). Springer. Pawlak, M. (2013b). Principles of instructed language learning revisited: Guidelines for effective grammar teaching in the foreign language classroom. In K. Dro´zdział-Szelest & M. Pawlak (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives on second language learning and teaching: Studies in honor of Waldemar Marton (pp. 199–220). Springer. Pawlak, M. (2013c). Researching grammar learning strategies: Combining the macro- and microperspective. In Ł Salski, W. Szubko-Sitarek, & J. Majer (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign language learning (pp. 191–220). University of Łód´z Press. Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Springer. Pawlak, M. (2015). Willingness to communicate as a factor influencing the effectiveness of inputproviding and output-prompting oral corrective feedback [Conference Paper]. Annual Conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Toronto. Pawlak, M. (2016). The role of autonomy in learning and teaching foreign language grammar. In M. Pawlak, A. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, & J. Bielak. (Eds.), Autonomy in second language learning: Managing the resources (pp. 3–19). Springer. Pawlak, M. (2017a). Individual difference variables as mediating influences on success and failure in form-focused instruction. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & M. Szyszka (Eds.), At the crossroads: Challenges of foreign language learning (pp. 75–92). Springer. Pawlak, M. (2017b). Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects on the process and outcome of interaction. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach. Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 19–40). John Benjamins. Pawlak, M. (2018). Grammar Learning Strategies Inventory (GLSI): Another look. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 351–379. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.8 Pawlak, M. (2019a). Tapping the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge: Methodological issues. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Contacts and contrasts in educational contexts and translation (pp. 45–60). Springer. Pawlak, M. (2019b). Investigating language learning strategies: Prospects, pitfalls and challenges. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819876156 Pawlak, M. (2019c). Grammar learning strategies: Patterns of use. In A. Uberman & M. Trinder, M. (Eds.), Text—Sentence—Word (pp. 66–77). University of Rzeszów Press. Pawlak, M. (2019d). Grammar learning strategies instruction in the foreign language classroom: The case of English majors. In A. U. Chamot & V. Harris (Eds.), Learning strategy Instruction in the language classroom: Issues and implementation (pp. 107–120). Multilingual Matters. Pawlak, M. (2020a). Grammar and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & T. Tajeddin (Eds.), Grammar and good language teachers (pp. 219–231). Cambridge University Press. Pawlak, M. (2020b). Individual differences and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & T. Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 121–132). Cambridge University Press.

References

133

Pawlak, M. (2020c). Grammar learning strategies as a key to mastering second language grammar: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 53, 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000314 Pawlak, M. (2021a). Teaching foreign language grammar to children: The role of individual differences. In J. Rokita-Ja´skow & A. Wolanin (Eds.), Facing diversity in child foreign language education (pp. 56–71). Springer. Pawlak, M. (2021b). Corrective feedback, developmental readiness, and language proficiency. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 733–753). Cambridge University Press. Pawlak, M. (2021c). Beliefs about grammar instruction and the mastery of the English passive voice. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Investigating individual learner differences in second language learning (pp. 173–188). Springer. Pawlak, M., & Biedro´n, A. (2019). Verbal working memory as a predictor of explicit and implicit knowledge of English passive voice. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2, 258–280. https:// doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19007.paw Pawlak, M., & Biedro´n, A. (2021). Working memory as a factor mediating explicit and implicit knowledge of English grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 118–125. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0267190521000052 Pawlak, M., & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2019). Teaching stylistic inversion to advanced learners of English: Interaction of input manipulation and individual difference variables. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57, 497–526. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral2017-0032 Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, & Bielak, J. (2015). Investigating the nature of classroom willingness to communicate (WTC): A micro-perspective. Language Teaching Research, 20, 654–671. Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, & Bielak, J. (2016). Exploring advanced learners’ beliefs about pronunciation instruction and their relationship with attainment. In E. Waniek-Klimczak & M. Pawlak (Eds.), Teaching and researching the pronunciation of English: Studies in honor of Włodzimierz Sobkowiak (pp. 3–22). Springer. Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, & Bielak, J. (2016). Investigating the nature of classroom willingness to communicate (WTC): A micro-perspective. Language Teaching Research, 20, 654–671. Pawlak, M., & Oxford, R.L. (2018). Conclusion: The future of research into language learning strategies. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 523–532. https://doi.org/10. 14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.15 Pawlak, M., Zawodniak, J., & Kruk, M. (2021). Boredom in the foreign language classroom: A micro-perspective. Springer. Peng, J. (2007). Willingness to communicate in an L2 and integrative motivation among college students in an intensive English language program in China. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 2, 33–59. Peng, J. E. (2014). Willingness to communicate inside the EFL classroom and beyond: An ecological perspective. Multilingual Matters. Peng, J. E., & Woodrow, L. J. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60, 834–876. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2011). Willingness to communicate in L2 and self-perceived levels of FL skills in Polish adolescents. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning (pp. 235–250). Springer. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2021). Positive predictive value of extraversion in diagnosing WTC. In N. Zarrinabadi & M. Pawlak (Eds.), New perspectives on willingness to communicate in a second language (pp. 135–153). Springer. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79. Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 159–179). Routledge.

134

References

Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effects sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 Polat, N. (2009). Matches in beliefs between teachers and students, and success in l2 attainment: The Georgian example. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 229–249. Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51. Ryan, S. (2005). Motivational factors questionnaire. University of Nottingham. Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 120–143). Multilingual Matters. Sagarra, N. (2017). Longitudinal effects of working memory on L2 grammar and reading abilities. Second Language Research, 33(3), 341–363. Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language learning. System, 27, 473–492. Sampson, R. J. (2016). EFL teacher motivation in-situ: Co-adaptive processes, openness and relational motivation over interacting timescales. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 293–318. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.6 Sarıçoban, A. (2005). Learner preferences in the use of strategies in learning grammar. Atatürk University Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 5, 319–330. Sato, M., & Oyanedel, J. C. (2019). “I think that is a better way to teach but …”: EFL teachers’ conflicting beliefs about grammar teaching. System, 84, 110–122. Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202. Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85, 244–258. Segalowitz, N., Gatbonton, E., & Trofimovich, P. (2009). Links between ethnolinguistic affiliation, self-related motivation and second language fluency: Are they mediated by psycholinguistic variables? In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 172–192). Multilingual Matters. Serafini, E., & Sanz, C. (2016). Evidence for the decreasing impact of cognitive ability on second language development as proficiency increases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 607–646. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford University Press. Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874. Shoaib, A., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Affect in life-long learning: Exploring L2 motivation as a dynamic process. In P. Benson & D. Nunan (Eds.), Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning (pp. 22–41). Cambridge University Press. Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236. Spada, N., Barkaoui, K., Peters, C., So, M., & Valeo, A. (2009). Developing a questionnaire to investigate second language learners’ preferences for two types of form-focused instruction. System, 37, 70–81. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308. Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 304–318.

References

135

Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99, 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212 Stevens, F. (1984). Strategies for second language acquisition. Eden Press. Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65, 860–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12138 Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Exploratory research on second language practice distribution: An Aptitude × Treatment Interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(1), 27–56. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0142716416000084 Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press. Tagarelli, K. M., Borges Mota, M., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Working memory, learning conditions, and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: theory, research and commentary (pp. 224–247). Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97). Multilingual Matters. Takeuchi, O., Griffiths, C., & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies to contexts: The role of individual, situational, and group differences. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 93–116). Oxford University Press. Tavakoli, M., & Zarrinabadi, N. (2016). Differential effects of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning, 12, 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1195391 Thompson, A. (2020). My many selves are still me: Motivation and multilingualism. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 159–176. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020. 10.1.8 Tilfarlio˘glu, Y. (2005). An analysis of the relationship between the use of grammar learning strategies and student achievement at English preparatory classes. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1, 155–169. Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2 communication. Modern Language Journal, 97, 591–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.120 31.x Ullman, M. T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 135–158). Routledge. Ushioda, E. (1998). Effective motivational thinking: A cognitive theoretical approach to the study of language learning motivation. In E. A. Soler & V. C. Espurz (Eds.), Current issues in English language methodology (pp. 77–89). Universitat Jaume I. Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215–228). Multilingual Matters. Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2012). Motivation. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 396–409). Routledge. VanPatten, B. (2003). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Routledge. Verhagen, J., Leseman, P., & Messer, M. (2015). Phonological memory and the acquisition of grammar in child L2 learners. Language Learning, 65, 417–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S01427 16408080211 Wach, A. (2016). L1-based strategies in learning the grammar of L2 English and L3 Russian by Polish learner. System, 61, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.001 Wach, A., & Monroy, F. (2019). Beliefs about L1 use in teaching English: A comparative study of Polish and Spanish teacher-trainees. Language Teaching Research, 24, 855–873. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1362168819830422

136

References

Waninge, F., Dörnyei, Z., & De Bot, K. (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning: Change, stability, and context. Modern Language Journal, 98, 704–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl. 12118 Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 51–79. 10.1080%2F713755607 Weaver, C. (2007). Willingness to communicate: A mediating factor in the interaction between learners and tasks. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 159–193). Cambridge Scholars. Wechsler, D. (1997). Manual for the Wechsler adult intelligence scale. The Psychological Corporation. Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories and research. Sage. Wen, Z. E. (2012). Working memory and second language learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00290 Wen, Z. E. (2016). Working memory and second language earning: Towards an integrated approach. Multilingual Matters. Wen, Z. E. (2019). Working memory as language aptitude: The phonological /executive model. In Z. E. Wen, P. Skehan, A. Biedro´n, S. Li, & R. Sparks (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 187–215). Routledge. Wen, Z. E., Biedro´n, A., & Skehan, P. (2016). Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Language Teaching, 50, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000276 Wen, Z. E., & Li, S. (2019). Working memory in L2 learning and processing. In J. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 365–389). Cambridge University Press. Wenden, A. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning. System, 27, 435–441. White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 12, 223–265. White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. Macmillan. Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning (pp. 673–691). Lawrence Erlbaum. Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge University Press. Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). ‘French is the language of love and stuff’: Student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British Educational Research Journal, 28, 503–528. Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53, 67–121. Woodrow, L. J. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37, 308–328. Wright, C. (2015). Working memory and L2 development across the lifespan: A commentary. In E. Z. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.),Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 224–247). Multilingual Matters. Wu, C.-P., & Lin, H.-J. (2014). Anxiety about speaking a foreign language as a mediator of the relation between motivation and willingness to communicate. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 119(3), 785–798. Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–262. Yashima, T. (2000). Orientations and motivation in foreign language learning: A study of Japanese college students. JACET Bulletin, 31, 121–133.

References

137

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66. Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 144–163). Multilingual Matters. Zahra, A., Rezazadeh, M., & Rahimi-Dashti, M. (2021). Teachers’ immediacy, self-disclosure, and technology policy as predictors of willingness to communicate: A structural equational modeling analysis. In N. Zarrinabadi & M. Pawlak (Eds.), New perspectives on willingness to communicate in a second language (pp. 219–234). Springer. Zarrinabadi, N. (2014). Communicating in a second language: Investigating the effect of teacher on learners’ willingness to communicate. System, 42, 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system. 2013.12.014 Zhang, R. (2015). Measuring university-level L2 learners’ implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 457–486. Zychowicz, K., Biedro´n, A., & Pawlak, (2018). Polish Nonword Span (PNWSPAN): A new tool for measuring phonological loop capacity. Glottodidactica, XLV/ 2, 309–327. https://doi.org/10. 14746/gl.2018.45.2.18 Zychowicz, K., Biedro´n, A., & Pawlak, M. (2017). Polish Listening Span: A new tool for measuring verbal working memory. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7, 601–618. https:// doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.4.3