BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//events.la.psu.edu//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20201101T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=11;BYDAY=1SU END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20200308T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=2SU END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:16911-62097654ae45be5d20bd753e9932d664@events.la.psu.edu DTSTAMP:20260412T064701Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20201113T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20201113T103000 SUMMARY:Carrie Jackson (Penn State) - The importance of production (and predicti on?) for the acquisition of L2 grammatical structures DESCRIPTION:The importance of production (and prediction?) for the acqui sition of L2 grammatical structures\nAn important question in instructed second language (L2) acquisition regards the relative effectiveness of comprehension-based instruction and production-based instruction for lea rning L2 grammatical forms. While recent meta-analyses (Shintani\, 2015\ ; Shintani\, et al.\, 2013) show an immediate advantage of comprehension -based instruction for receptive knowledge and a long-term advantage of production-based instruction for productive knowledge\, questions remain regarding the underlying cognitive mechanisms associated with language production\, and how they may be particularly beneficial to the acquisit ion of L2 grammatical forms. In this talk I will discuss two recent stud ies from our lab: 1) A training study in which beginning L1 English-L2 l earners of German learned German grammatical gender marking (e.g.\, ein blauer Becher “a.MASC blue.MASC cup.MASC” vs. eine blaue Schüssel “a.FEM red.FEM bowl.FEM”) via comprehension-based vs. production-based trainin g units and (2) a structural priming study that measured the production of double object vs. prepositional object dative constructions (e.g.\, T he boy gives the girl the book/The boy gives the book to the girl) among intermediate L1 Korean-L2 learners of English. Based on results from th ese two studies I will argue that learning is enhanced when learners mus t overtly produce targeted grammatical forms rather than simply comprehe nding these forms—and especially production-based activities that encour age learners to evaluate whether their own self-generated productions ma tch predicted target forms. I attribute this advantage for production-ba sed training to the cognitive mechanisms that underlie language producti on\, including utterance planning and lexical retrieval\, and the ways i n which production-based training encourages learners to “notice the gap ” between their own productions and target forms (e.g.\, Potts et al.\, 2019\; Schmidt\, 2001\; Swain\, 2005). Over time\, these processes suppo rt the creation of stronger linguistic representations in memory than ac tivities that only require learners to recognize target forms and map th ose forms to their intended meaning. \; \;\n\nFor more details: https://events.la.psu.edu/event/carrie-jackson-penn-state-the-importance -of-production-and-prediction-for-the-acquisition-of-l2-grammatical-stru ctures/ X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:

The importance of production (and prediction?) for the ac quisition of L2 grammatical structures

An important question in in structed second language (L2) acquisition regards the relative effective ness of comprehension-based instruction and production-based instruction for learning L2 grammatical forms. While recent meta-analyses (Shintani, 2015 ; Shintani, et al., 2013) show an immediate advantage of comprehension-b ased instruction for receptive knowledge and a long-term advantage of pr oduction-based instruction for productive knowledge, questions remain re garding the underlying cognitive mechanisms associated with language pro duction, and how they may be particularly beneficial to the acquisition of L2 grammatical forms. In this talk I will discuss two recent studies from our lab: 1) A training study in which beginning L1 English-L2 learn ers of German learned German grammatical gender marking (e.g., ein blauer B echer “a.MASC blue.MASC cup.MASC” vs. < /span>eine blaue Schüssel “a.FEM red.FEM bowl.FEM ”) via comprehension-based vs. production-based training units and (2) a structural priming study that measured the production of double object vs. prepositional object dative constructions (e.g., The boy gives the girl the book/The boy gives the book to the girl) among intermediate L1 Korean- L2 learners of English. Based on results from these two studies I will a rgue that learning is enhanced when learners must overtly produce target ed grammatical forms rather than simply comprehending these forms—and es pecially production-based activities that encourage learners to evaluate whether their own self-generated productions match predicted target for ms. I attribute this advantage for production-based training to the cogn itive mechanisms that underlie language production, including utterance planning and lexical retrieval, and the ways in which production-based t raining encourages learners to “notice the gap” between their own produc tions and target forms (e.g., Potts et al., 2019; Schmidt, 2001; Swain, 2005). Over time, these processes support the creation of stronger lingu istic representations in memory than activities that only require learne rs to recognize target forms and map those forms to their intended meani ng.  

For more details: https:/ /events.la.psu.edu/event/carrie-jackson-penn-state-the-importance-of-pro duction-and-prediction-for-the-acquisition-of-l2-grammatical-structures/

END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR