Volume 5 (2014) Issue 2
pp. 161-180
The
Maze Task:
Examining
the Training Effect of Using a Psycholinguistic Experimental
Technique for Second Language Learning
Elizabeth
Enkin (Lincoln (Nebraska), USA) / Kenneth Forster (Tucson (Arizona),
USA)
Abstract
(English)
The
maze
task
is a psycholinguistic procedure that measures “real time”
sentence processing. However, unlike other psycholinguistic tasks, it
is quite unique because it forces incremental processing of a
sentence. This study therefore explores the task’s merits in a
rather different arena, namely as a language training program for
beginner (second semester) Spanish learners. Through
a maze training-test paradigm, results showed that maze training can
assist in developing procedural representations. Specifically, as
compared to learners who were trained on Spanish structures that were
similar to English (learners’ L1), those trained on structures that
differed from English showed comparable reaction times to both
structures. There
was also a carryover effect from this training to a posttest (an
untimed grammaticality judgment task), which suggests that maze
training can also help develop explicit knowledge of a language.
Moreover, results
on a production-based
paper-and-pencil pretest-posttest indicated that after maze training,
learners showed significant improvement. Lastly, questionnaire
results demonstrated enthusiasm towards the task.
Key
words: Second language learning, psycholinguistics, Spanish language
learning, maze task
Abstract
(Español)
El
"maze task" (en español, la tarea del laberinto) es un
método
psicolingüístico
que
mide el procesamiento de las oraciones en “tiempo real”. Sin
embargo, a diferencia de otras técnicas psicolingüísticas,
tiene la particularidad de forzar el procesamiento de una oración de
una manera gradual. Por lo tanto, este estudio examina la efectividad
de este método en un área diferente, específicamente como un
programa de ayuda en el aprendizaje de lenguas para los estudiantes
principiantes (de segundo semestre) de español. Utilizando un
paradigma de instrucción-examen, los resultados mostraron que el
entrenamiento con el maze task puede ayudar con el desarrollo de
representaciones implícitas. Específicamente, en comparación con
los estudiantes que fueron entrenados con estructuras españolas
similares a estructuras del inglés (la L1 de los estudiantes), los
estudiantes que fueron entrenados con estructuras diferentes a las
del inglés, mostraron, para ambos tipos de estructuras, tiempos de
reacción comparables. Asimismo, este tipo de entrenamiento tuvo un
efecto adicional (en una tarea de juicios de gramaticalidad sin
límite de tiempo). Este efecto implica que el entrenamiento con el
maze
task
también puede ayudar con el desarrollo de conocimiento explícito de
una lengua. Además, los estudiantes completaron un pretest-posttest
a mano que examinó habilidades de producción. Los
resultados
del pretest-posttest mostraron que los estudiantes mejoraron
significativamente.
Finalmente,
los resultados de un cuestionario mostraron una reacción positiva de
los estudiantes hacia el maze
task.
Palabras
clave: Aprendizaje de segunda lengua, psicolingüística,
aprendizaje de lengua española, maze
task
1
Introduction
1.1
General Remarks
The
maze
task is
a technique used in psycholinguistic experiments that is designed to
measure reaction times as subjects read and comprehend sentences
(Forster
2010, Forster, Guerrera & Elliot 2009, J. Witzel & Forster
2014, N. Witzel, J. Witzel & Forster 2012, Qiao,
Shen & Forster 2012).
The task requires subjects to 'weave' their way through a sentence
word by word by choosing the correct grammatical alternative from two
choices (thus the name 'maze').
As is common in psycholinguistic tasks, the maze task requires
subjects to complete the activity as quickly as possible, but not so
quickly that a mistake is made, thereby measuring real-time (or more
formally, 'online') processing speed as opposed to other types of
tasks that allow subjects more time to reflect on their responses
(referred to as 'offline' tasks).
In
this task, two words are presented side by side, and the participant
is asked to decide which word could correctly continue the sentence.
One of the alternatives is the correct choice, while the other choice
would be ungrammatical and unnatural when taking into consideration
the previous words that have already been chosen. Participants
respond by pressing either the left arrow key, which indicates that
they are choosing the word on the left-hand side of the screen, or
the right arrow key for the word on the right-hand side. When a
correct response is selected, another two words appear on the screen
and this procedure continues until the entire sentence has been
constructed. An example item can be found in Figure 1 below:
Figure
1. A sample maze task sentence, frame by frame
In
each frame there is only one correct continuation to the sentence.
Subjects view each frame separately and when a correct choice is
made, they are then able to view the next frame.
In
the first frame of the sentence in Figure 1, the participant would
see the first word (in this case “The”) on the left-hand side of
the screen and alongside it “x-x-x”, which would signal to the
participant that this is the beginning of the sentence, and her / she
is free to press any key. Once this happens, the subsequent frame is
presented (in this case “walked school”), which replaces the
previous frame that was seen. For the remainder of the frames, the
correct sequence would be left and right, which would make the
sentence The
school needs books.
In experiments that utilize this task, when an error occurs (that is,
when an incorrect alternative is erroneously chosen), the trial is
aborted1.
Unlike
traditional procedures that measure online sentence processing time,
the maze task is unique because it forces the reader into a
processing mode that is incremental. As Forster et al. (2009)
explain, this means that the task does not require the use of
comprehension questions (i.e. comprehension checks), which are
routinely incorporated into other procedures, such as eye tracking
(Reichle Rayner & Pollatsek 2003) and self-paced reading (Just
Carpenter & Woolley 1982). Evidence
for not needing to use comprehension questions stems from Freedman & Forster (1985) in whose study the maze task procedure yielded
processing costs for ungrammatical sentences containing a subjacency
violation. Furthermore, the maze task has also been used to replicate
past findings from both a sentence production task (Nicol, Forster & Veres 1997) and an eye tracking experiment (Forster et al. 2009).
The
effectiveness of the maze task has recently been tested in a study
comparing various online reading paradigms (N. Witzel, J. Witzel & Forster 2012). The authors included in their comparison two versions
of the maze - one called lexicality
maze
(L-maze),
and the other one grammaticality
maze
(G-maze).
The difference between these two versions is that in an L-maze, the
incorrect alternative is an orthographically legal nonword (and is
therefore considered the easier version), whereas in the G-maze, it
is an ungrammatical choice (as described at the beginning of this
article). Both maze versions were highly effective in detecting the
expected syntactic effects and, moreover, yielded highly robust
localized effects for processing difficulties as compared to eye
tracking and self-paced reading. On the background of these results
in conjunction with the findings discussed thus far, two critical
points that are also made in Forster et al. (2009) are important to
highlight:
- participants cannot perform the maze task without full comprehension of the input, and
- participants are aware that they must process each word of each sentence deeply enough so that they can continue constructing the sentence.
As
is evident, the maze task is generally used to measure the processing
costs of specific constructions in psycholinguistic experiments.
However, as it creates conditions i participants must adopt a rapid
and incremental approach for processing and comprehending sentences,
it is hypothesized that it could also be successfully used for
language learning purposes - specifically, we use the G-maze here to
ensure that learners must incrementally integrate words in a
sentence. Moreover,
although the maze task is a reading paradigm, it is quite a different
procedure as compared to other tasks. In a sense, the maze task can
be viewed as a procedure of building
sentences, which may require participants to produce
sentences as well. Thus, this attribute further makes the maze task a
promising
candidate for language learning since it is possible that training
with the maze task may invoke production processes, as well as
comprehension processes.
The
present study therefore investigates the merits of the maze task in
rather a different field
as compared to past psycholinguistic studies utilizing this
procedure. Namely, we investigate how the maze task fares as a
language training / learning program for beginner (late /
university-aged, second semester) learners of Spanish. When the maze
task is used
as a training instrument, it is possible that repeated practice on
structures could strengthen the connections between already existing
associations, thereby helping to develop language automaticity and
even fluency. This study is therefore unique in nature and offers an
interdisciplinary approach to studying second language (L2)
acquisition. Specifically, it bridges the gap between
psycholinguistic experimentation and actual language learning. The
present article is a substantially revised and improved version of an
earlier working paper on this topic (Enkin 2012). It has been
revised with respect to all aspects, such as review of literature,
description of participants and methodology, and data analyses and
interpretation.
1.2
The Maze Task and Second Language Learning
In
the field of second language acquisition, implicit and explicit
knowledge have been identified as two knowledge bases that may affect
ultimate L2 attainment (N. Ellis 1994; Gasparini 2004). Implicit
knowledge is the intuitive understanding of the manner in which a
language works, whereas explicit knowledge
is
considered conscious awareness
of the grammatical rules of a language (R. Ellis 2009a). There is
general agreement that linguistic knowledge is primarily comprised of
intuitive (implicit) and tacit knowledge, and that acquisition of a
second language involves the development of this type of knowledge
(R. Ellis 2005, 1993). Although, when classroom learners (i.e. adult
learners) are considered, explicit knowledge may be helpful (DeKeyser
& Juffs 2005).
In
this study,
we ask whether the maze task can be used as a language learning tool
for aiding in L2 knowledge
development. Specifically, when used for training, the maze task can
potentially reinforce instruction from class - learners must go
through the process of selecting the correct continuation to a
sentence, word by word, as quickly as possible. They are notified
when they make a mistake and are permitted to try the sentence again.
In this way, the maze task could play a key role in reinforcing
formal instruction by way of practice.
1.3
The Present Study: Research Questions
In
the present study, we investigate the main question of whether or not
maze task training can assist with L2 learning. In order to
investigate this question, three separate measures are considered.
First, we examine whether or not learners can gain implicit knowledge
from maze task training. As the maze task asks for rapid responses,
when used in a training-test paradigm, it will be possible to measure
implicit knowledge of
the L2 (through an analysis of the
test session)
(Ellis 2009b for a review of measures of implicit and explicit
knowledge). However, as the present study involves late learners, it
is also important to ask our second
research question, which is whether maze task training can offer
benefits for explicit knowledge. This is the reason why an untimed
grammaticality judgment task (a measure of explicit knowledge that
was administered after the maze training-test portion) was also
incorporated. If the results are overall encouraging, then it will be
possible to say
that maze training can be used as a complement to formal instruction.
The
third research question asks whether there is an overall learning
benefit from maze task training. We use a pretest-posttest design to
examine whether or not learners would show an improvement in scores
after the maze task training. This pretest-posttest is a
paper-and-pencil production task in which learners must
fill-in-the-blank with the correct verb and verb form (this was one
of the constructions, copulative verbs, trained in the maze task –
see Section 2). We use a fill-in-the-blank task because the logic
here is that, as described earlier, the maze task may also require
production processes. The format chosen for the production task (i.e.
a fill-in-the-blank task) is one with which learners are familiar
with (from exams, classroom work,
and homework), and therefore we
reason that
this is a good fit to test improvement.
Lastly,
as we are interested
in using the maze task for the purposes of L2 learning, we also
report on the results of a questionnaire. Participants
were given an attitude questionnaire to complete at the conclusion of
the experiment. In this survey, participants were asked about their
perceptions of the task with respect to helpfulness, level of
interest, and potential usefulness. It included questions that
required students to rate their answers (from a strong Yes
to a strong No).
1.4
The Maze Task Test Session and the Untimed Grammaticality Judgment
Task
With
respect to investigating the first and second questions described
above, a brief explanation regarding the general design
is needed. There is general agreement that the L1 influence affects
L2 acquisition, and that this influence can be rather strong
(Gass & Selinker 1992). In fact, Tokowicz & MacWhinney (2005)
found that in an event-related potential (ERP) study, when presented
with L2 constructions that differed from their L1, learners were not
sensitive to grammatical violations
(no P600 effect,
which
is a positive-going deflection in an ERP waveform caused by a
grammatical violation; Osterhout & Holcomb 1992).
These results emphasize that with
respect to structures that differ in the L1 and L2, learners may have
difficulties storing
these structures as procedural representations, and thus may not
process them in a native-like way. Therefore, sentence constructions
used for two maze training types in this study had a
“similar-to-English” version (henceforth called English-similar
versions)
and a “different-from-English” version (henceforth referred to as
Spanish-specific
versions),
which referred to the state of similarity to English,
i.e.
the learners’ L1. Thus, participants were maze-trained on either
English-similar
or Spanish-specific
versions.
We
set out to measure if maze training on these sentence types could
show learning benefits. The term learning
benefits
as used here refers to reaction times (in milliseconds) on a maze
task session given after training sessions (i.e. the test session).
This post-training maze task session contained both English-similar
and Spanish-specific versions, and the objective was to examine how
each training group fared with respect to response times for each
version (i.e.
trained structures as compared to untrained structures). We were
particularly interested in measuring whether training
on Spanish-specific structures would yield learning benefits as
compared to those learners trained on English-similar structures. The
logic here is that training with Spanish-specific types, if
successful, would have important implications for language learning.
In
order to test a carryover effect to a different type of task, we
incorporated an untimed grammaticality judgment task as a posttest
(administered after the maze training-test portion of the
experiment). The logic here was that if there was a training effect
observed on the post-training maze task session, then including a
grammaticality judgment task as a posttest would allow us to examine
whether the training effect could generalize to a measure of explicit
knowledge. That is, due to the nature of maze training, it is also
possible that there are benefits on explicit knowledge since, during
the training,
the task will display an error
message
in the precise location of an error (and then learners have the
opportunity to try the sentence again). This allows learners to
deduce for themselves why the error had occurred. Thus, we also
question whether there would be maze training benefits (and
specifically, from maze training with the Spanish-specific
structures) on this type of task.
1.5
Hypotheses
For
the maze training-test portion, one hypothesis is that the
participants trained on the Spanish-specific versions will, after the
training, show benefits for both the Spanish-specific and the
English-similar sentence versions, but the same may not be true for
the participants trained on the English-similar versions; for them,
the Spanish-specific versions should be more difficult than the
English-similar versions with which they were trained. One piece of
evidence for this proposed asymmetry comes from aphasia research
where investigators found that training on syntactically complex
sentences benefitted performance on syntactically less complex
sentences, but not the reverse (Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran & Sobecks 2003). Additional evidence comes from English as a second
language
(ESL) research where instruction on a difficult structure (object of
prepositional relative clauses)
improved performance
on simpler
structures (object relative and subject relative clauses), but the
reverse was not true (Eckman, Bell & Nelson 1988). In the present
study, beginner learners may not have implicit representations for
the Spanish-specific versions, and
thus, these structures may be
more difficult to store as procedural representations, whereas
English-similar versions are more readily stored in implicit
knowledge. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the training effect
examined here may show a similar asymmetry as discussed in the
studies above.
For
the untimed grammaticality judgment task, we hypothesize that maze
training benefits will show a carryover effect. In other words, we
anticipate a similar effect to what we expect for the post-training
maze task session (as discussed above). However, since this is an
untimed task, it allows a sufficient amount of time to access
explicit knowledge (R. Ellis 2009b, Loewen 2009). Therefore, as it is
possible that the maze task may be able to assist with building both
implicit and explicit knowledge, when given enough time, learners
trained on Spanish-specific versions may be able to call on both
knowledge bases, thus yielding better accuracy overall (i.e., better
performance on both “Spanish-specific” and “English-similar”
versions).
For
the pretest-posttest, we hypothesize that learners will show
significant
improvement after training. The idea here is that after undergoing
the maze
training, when asked to perform a fill-in-the-blank task that
includes one of the sentence constructions used in the
maze training, learners will show improvement. This task also serves
as an indication regarding whether or not learners, after undergoing
maze training, can show improvement on a production task.
Finally,
for the attitude questionnaire, we hypothesize that learners will be
welcoming of the task. Due to its fast-paced nature as well as its
novelty, we believe that learners will be enthusiastic to complete
the task, especially since it is such a different activity as
compared to online workbooks (though online workbook activities
certainly have their place). One of the most important results we are
examining is whether learners
perceive the task to be both helpful and fun.
2
Method
2.1
Participants
Twenty-one
undergraduate students enrolled in one Spanish 102 class (a second
semester beginner level Spanish class) at a large university in the
United States Southwest participated for course credit. Participants
were native speakers of English. Subjects were randomly assigned
into one of two training groups, which was either English
or Spanish
(eleven subjects in the English
training group and ten subjects in the Spanish
training group). These groups referred to the type of sentences
students received during maze training sessions. The English
training group received sentence stimuli referred to as
similar-to-English
while the Spanish
training group received different-from-English
sentences. These sentence types
are
explained
in more detail in the following section.
2.1.1
Proficiency Test
In
order to be enrolled in the 102 level at this university, students
must take a 20-25 minute computer-adaptive placement (proficiency)
examination administered by the university. The web-based examination
is the BYU (Brigham Young University) WebCAPE (Computer-Adaptive
Placement Exam). This examination asks questions of varying
difficulty level and adapts its questions according to students’
answers. The qualifying score to be placed into Spanish 102 is a
range of 201-309. Students scoring below 201 are placed into Spanish
101. Scores above 480 place a student into advanced (third-year)
classes. The only alternative way that students can register for the
102 level is by having college transfer credits from the previous
level of Spanish (101). This proficiency requirement served to ensure
that students were of comparable skill level in Spanish.
2.2
Materials and Design
Before
discussing the specific design of the present study, a brief
discussion regarding the types of structures used throughout the
experiment is necessary. There were two types of sentence structures
used: Spanish-specific types, which contained Spanish structures that
were
different-from-English,
and English-similar
types, which contained structures that were similar-to-English.
In order to add variety for participants during the
maze task training, the two conditions (English-similar
and Spanish-specific
types) were comprised of three sentence constructions – object
relative clauses, direct object pronouns, and
the to
be
verbs ser
and
estar
(i.e. copulative
verbs) – because they each have a Spanish-specific version and an
English-similar
version (these versions being illustrated in example maze sentences
found in Table 1 further below).
For
the object relative clauses and direct object pronouns, these can
both be structurally English-similar or Spanish-specific. For the
object relative clauses, the English-similar versions contained an
overt subject after the relative pronoun,
whereas
in the Spanish-specific versions, there was an omission of the
subject pronoun after the relative pronoun (Spanish is a pro-drop
language whereas English is not). When pro-drop occurs after a
relative pronoun, the object relative clause construction becomes
quite Spanish-specific since in English, an overt subject (noun or
pronoun) is obligatory after the relative pronoun. Thus, beginner
Spanish learners (with English as the
L1) must learn to pay close attention to verb conjugation, especially
in this context, if the sentence is to be interpreted correctly.
With
direct object pronouns, the placement of the clitic identified the
sentence as English-similar or Spanish-specific. In Spanish sentences
containing a tensed verb followed by an infinitive verb, a clitic can
appear in one of two positions: preverbal (raised, appearing before
the tensed verb), or postverbal (attached to the end of the
infinitive verb). Thus, the English-similar versions contained a
direct object pronoun attached to the end of an infinitive verb
(since English only has postverbal placement), whereas the
Spanish-specific versions contained a direct object pronoun that was
preverbal (which would never occur in English).
The
final construction focused on a lexical contrast between English and
Spanish. Spanish has two copulative verbs (ser
and
estar)
that
both translate as to
be. Ser
expresses
permanency while estar
expresses
temporary states, which is not a distinction
made in English. According
to VanPatten (1987), the verb ser
is
assimilated into its English translation first, and as learners whose
L1 is English gradually acquire ser
and
estar,
they linger at the stage of acquisition where they use and overuse
ser
exclusively.
As VanPatten proposes, this may occur due to L1 influence because at
that point in acquisition, only one copula exists in both languages.
This would allow learners to equate Spanish ser
with
English to
be,
thereby facilitating learners to linger at the stage of acquisition
in which they solely
use ser.
Due to this hypothesis, we used ser
in the English-similar versions of the verb to
be.
Sentences
focused on specific uses of the verb, such as describing occupations
and expressing
time. The counterpart verb, estar,
was
used in the Spanish-specific versions. These sentences focused on
uses such as describing emotion and location.
Sentence
Types
|
English-similar
Sentences
|
Spanish-specific
Sentences
|
Object
Relative Clauses with vs. without overt subject
|
Los
perros que
muchas personas tienen
comen mucha comida.
The
dogs that
many people have
eat a lot of food.
|
El
libro que
necesitas
cuesta mucho dinero.
The
book that
Ø
(you)
need
costs a lot of money.
|
Direct
Object Pronouns that follow vs. precede a verb
|
Me
gustan los restaurantes italianos y quiero
recomen-darlos
para las fiestas.
I like Italian restaurants and I want to recommend them for parties. |
Me
gustan las mascotas y las
quiero recomendar
para las personas viejas.
I like pets and I want to recommend them for elderly people. |
To
be
as ser
vs. estar
|
Trabajo
en una oficina grande porque soy
abogada.
I
work in a big office because I
am
a lawyer.
|
No
quiero salir porque estoy
triste esta noche.
I
do not want to go out because I
am
sad tonight.
|
Table
1: Sentence types
The
sentence types used in this study were level-appropriate for Spanish
102 learners and their curriculum. All structures were familiar to
students by mid-semester
before the maze training began, but there was no additional classroom
instruction specifically focusing on these structures after the
experiment had started. The course was taught communicatively and
fully in Spanish. Grammar instruction consisted of outlining rules
and then, class time was largely devoted to practice in context.
Class activities were geared towards developing language skills
(listening,
speaking,
reading,
and writing)
and included pair and small group work focusing on interaction.
2.2.1
Pretest (Paper-and-Pencil Test)
One
week prior to the start
of the maze task training, all participants were given a
paper-and-pencil pretest in class to complete during class time. This
task was a fill-in-the-blank test where participants needed to
complete sentences by choosing either ser
or
estar,
and
then needed to correctly conjugate the verb chosen. Thus,
this task was comprised of the to
be
structures seen in the maze task portion of the experiment. The main
reason why this construction was chosen was because it could easily
be used for a fill-in-the-blank task and also because it requires
learners to do two things (to choose and
conjugate a verb). Therefore, using this construction allowed more
room for improvement. Two versions of this task were created, and
half of the subjects received Version
A as
their pretest whereas the other half received Version
B as
their pretest (this was done so that a counterbalanced design could
be used with the corresponding posttest – see below). The two
versions were of the same skill level (suitable for Spanish 102),
with each one containing 10
total sentences (5 English-similar types and 5 Spanish-specific
types). The only difference between the two versions consisted in the
lexical items, which were all of appropriate level:
Examples:
Mi novio y yo _______ muy contentos con la idea de comer helado. -
My boyfriend and I ______ very happy with the idea of eating ice cream
Mi amigo y yo _______ muy tristes con la idea de ir a la clase. -My friend and I ______ very sad with the idea of going to the class.
2.2.2
Maze Task Training
Both
training groups completed three training sessions, one per week, over
a three-week period. There were 20 sentences
in total in each training session: 15 sentences contained target
structures (either English-similar or Spanish-specific,
depending on the training group) while the remaining five sentences
were grammatical fillers that were the same for both groups. Each
group was
trained on their sentence
types, i.e. the “English” training group was trained on
English-similar types, whereas the “Spanish” training group was
trained on Spanish-specific types. The sentences for each group were
the same from session to session as were the incorrect alternatives
(which were of appropriate Spanish level). During the training
sessions,
the subjects
were asked to try the sentence again if they made a mistake. The
location of the mistake in the sentence was pointed out immediately
so that students could see where they had made an error.
2.2.3
Maze Task Test
A
final maze task test session, which was administered to participants
on
the
fourth week, contained all new sentences, but an equal amount of both
English-similar and Spanish-specific types. There were a total of 32
sentences, 28 experimental sentences, and subjects were not able to
try the sentence
again when they made a mistake. The feature of immediate feedback
(i.e., pointing out the precise location
of an error) was still present.
2.2.4
Grammaticality Judgment Task
An
untimed grammaticality judgment task was administered to participants
during the fifth week. There were a total of 24 items – 12
grammatical sentences and 12 ungrammatical filler sentences. From the
12 grammatical items, six were the experimental sentences (3
English-similar types and 3 Spanish-specific types) and the remaining
six
items were
fillers. Each sentence had ten words each:
Example:Usualmente no como el jamón pero hoy lo quiero comer. –
Usually I do not eat ham but today I want to eat it.
2.2.5
Posttest (Paper-and-Pencil Test)
The
paper-and-pencil posttest was administered to participants in class
one week after the maze training-test portion of the experiment. The
subjects completed the test during class time, and received the
version of the test (Version A or B) they had not yet completed for
the pretest, and therefore a counterbalanced design was implemented
(e.g. if a subject completed Version A for the pretest, then they
would complete Version B for the posttest, and vice versa).
2.2.6
Attitude Questionnaire
At
the conclusion of the study, participants filled out a questionnaire
in class about the maze task. There were 11 questions that asked for
feedback on the likeability and usefulness of the task. Participants
rated each question on a scale from 5 to 1 (5=
strong yes, 4= yes, 3= neutral, 2= no, 1= strong no).
The subjects were asked questions about
how enjoyable and
helpful the task was, how motivating it was for learning (especially
compared to their online workbook), if the task could help improve
performance elsewhere (e.g. on examinations), and if they could see
it as part of a curriculum for Spanish and other languages.
2.3
Procedure for Computerized Sessions
2.3.1
Maze Task Training
The
training sessions (as well as the maze task test and the
grammaticality judgment task) were run using the DMDX software
package, which was developed at the University of Arizona (Forster & Forster 2003). Each session was sent via email as a link, and once
students clicked on a link, DMDX (Display
Master DirectX)
would
automatically install on their PCs for the duration of the task.
Students completed each session in one sitting and only one time.
They had a full week to complete each session so as to allow them to
do each one at their convenience.
The
items were presented in black letters on a white background. Every
item, each making up a sentence, consisted of a series of frames.
After the first frame, each subsequent frame contained two words side
by side, where one was the correct next word in the sentence, while
the other was grammatically and semantically incorrect.
Example:
El x-x-x / libro unas / que contaminación / necesitas porque / cuesta banco / mucho comen / dinero. sin. –
The x-x-x / book a / that pollution / [you need] because / costs bank / [a lot of] [they eat] / money. without.
Correct
and incorrect alternatives appeared
randomly on the left-hand side or on the right-hand side of the
screen. Furthermore, since the training sessions contained the same
sentences and incorrect alternatives for each training group, the
incorrect alternatives appeared on random sides of the screen (left
or right) from session to session. This was done so that subjects
could not memorize the position of the correct alternatives on the
screen. The sentences were
presented in a randomized order for each subject for each session.
The
participants were instructed to choose the correct word in each frame
as quickly and as accurately as possible by pushing the corresponding
left or right button (either the left or right arrow key). If the
word was correctly selected, the next frame was displayed
immediately. If
the incorrect alternative was selected, an "error" message
was displayed. When an error occurred,
subjects were given the choice to try the sentence again by pushing
the corresponding key. If the participants
made the correct choice throughout the frames for an item, the final
frame was followed by a “correct” message. Subsequently, the
beginning of the next item (i.e. the start of a new sentence) would
appear. Participants received the same four practice sentences at the
beginning of each session.
2.3.2
Maze Task Test
The
link for the maze task test session was sent via email, and the
participants had one week during which they could complete this
session (in one sitting). The instructions remained the same and the
items were presented in the same manner as in the training sessions.
Once again, the sentences were presented in a randomized order for
each subject. In this session, however, the participants were not
given the choice of trying a sentence again, and thus,
when an error occurred, the program would display an error message,
and then move on to the next item. The participants were given six
practice sentences at the beginning of the session.
2.3.3
Grammaticality Judgment Task
The
link for the untimed grammaticality judgment task was sent to the
subjects via email, and the participants had one week during which
they could complete this session (in one sitting). Each frame
displayed a full sentence, and the order of sentences was randomized
for each subject. Each sentence appeared in black letters on a white
background. The participants were instructed to decide whether the
sentences they saw were grammatical or not (by pressing one of two
response keys, when they were ready). At the start
of the task, participants were given five practice items.
3
Results (Data Analyses)
Unless
otherwise stated, all analyses were carried out, using linear mixed
effects modeling. The analyses involved fitting linear mixed effects
models (LMERs) to the data points of interest, which was done, using
the LMER function from the lme4 package in R (Baayen 2008a, 2008b,
Baayen, Davidson & Bates 2008, Pinheiro & Bates 2000, R
Development Core Team 2013). The method using LMERs offers a critical
advantage over the F1 / F2 method (i.e. traditional analysis carried
out through ANOVA) because it allows for two crossed random effects
(i.e., subjects and items can both be treated as random effects
within the same model). Moreover, the LMER software analyzes the data
for each individual trial without needing to aggregate over items and
subjects, and then arrives at the best fitting linear model with both
subjects and items as random effects. Thus, these models have the
advantage of working over the complete set of data points for each
subject and each item. The p-values
for the effects were generated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
simulation, using 10,000 iterations (Baayen et al. 2008). In the
analyses presented below,
the main
effects were derived from running a model only looking at main
effects, whereas interactions of interest were obtained by running a
model looking at an interaction between the factors.
3.1
Maze Task Test
Prior
to the analyses, the raw reaction times (RTs) were
log-converted in order
to correct for the marked positive skew that is typical of reaction
times. Filler sentences were removed from the analysis, and all
trials where an error occurred were discarded. In addition, trials
that were never seen due to a prior error were all ignored. This
occurred if the subject would “error out” of a sentence thereby
not ever seeing the rest of the sentence. The first word in each
sentence (i.e. where the correct response was provided) was also
removed from the analysis. Lastly, RTs were trimmed so that those
under 300 ms and over 5000 ms were not included in the analysis.
LMERs
were fitted to the data with
subjects and items as random effects. The training group was analyzed
as a fixed-effect between-subjects factor, with the levels English
(for the training group receiving English-similar sentences) and
Spanish
(for the training group receiving Spanish-specific sentences). The
sentence type was analyzed as a second fixed-effect within-subjects
factor,
with the levels English-similar
types
and Spanish-specific
types.
Using
RTs to whole sentences as the dependent variable (since the focus was
on the training effect rather
than specific sentence regions), the critical interaction of the
training group by sentence type was significant (t
=
2.74, p
< .01), reflecting a training effect (there was no main effect of
sentence type, t
=
0.57, p
>
.05, nor of training group, t
=
1.50, p
>
.05). This result meant that the difference in RTs between the two
training groups for the Spanish-specific sentences (94 ms) was
significantly greater than the difference for the English-similar
sentences (36 ms). Stated differently, the interaction showed that
there
was little difference in difficulty (3 ms) between English-similar
and Spanish-specific sentences for the "Spanish" training
group, but a substantial difference (61 ms) for the “English”
training group (Figure 2 below illustrates the mean RTs, which have
been log-converted). The means illustrated that the students
having been trained on Spanish-specific versions (those subjects in
the “Spanish” training group) yielded comparable RTs on both
Spanish-specific and English-similar versions, whereas the learners
that had received training on English-similar
structures (i.e. the “English” training group) found the
Spanish-specific structures more difficult.
Figure
2. Mean
reaction times (in ms)
(on
English-similar and Spanish-specific sentence types for the maze task
“test” session, where “English” and “Spanish” training
groups refer to the sentence types received during training
(“English-similar” or “Spanish-specific”))
3.2
Grammaticality Judgment Task
For
the untimed grammaticality judgment task, the factors remained the
same as in the maze task test session. Error rates on the target
grammatical items (English-similar and Spanish-specific sentences)
were used as the dependent variable. There was no significant
interaction of training group by sentence type (t
= 0.63, p
>
.05). However, there was a significant main effect of training group,
(t =
1.87, p
< .05) (no main effect of sentence type, t
= 0.40, p
>
.05), which indicated that the “Spanish” training group, that was
trained with the Spanish-specific types, made significantly fewer
errors overall as compared to the “English” training group (those
participants trained on English-similar types) (Figure 3 below).
Figure 3. Mean error
rates
(on
“English-similar” and “Spanish-specific” sentence types for
the grammaticality judgment task, where “English” and “Spanish”
training groups refer to the sentence types received during training
(“English-similar” or “Spanish-specific”))
3.3
Pretest-Posttest (Paper-and-Pencil Test)
For
the pretest-posttest, learners showed significant improvement from
pretest (mean score = 7.6 out of 10) to posttest (mean score = 8.3
out of 10) by a related sample one-tailed within-subjects t-test, (t
[20] =
1.95, p
<
.05).
3.4
Attitude Questionnaire
The
attitude questionnaire yielded an average score of 4.3 out of 5 on
all questions. Top scoring questions revealed that the maze task was
an enjoyable supplement to online workbooks (most probably due
to its interactive nature), that students felt motivated to complete
the task, that it was helpful for Spanish learning, and that it was a
fun task. Learners also indicated that they thought the task would be
a good addition to a Spanish curriculum and that it may be helpful
for learning other languages.
4
Discussion
The
present study has focused on examining whether the maze task could be
used for second language learning. The overall objective was to
establish that the task could assist with language learning because
- it forces incremental and rapid sentence processing (Forster 2010, Forster et al. 2009, and N. Witzel et al. 2012), and
- one needs to not only comprehend the language stimuli fully, but also each word of each sentence must be processed quite deeply (Forster et al. 2009).
We
used several different measures to assess the effect of maze task
training, and the results presented here are promising.
Since
the maze task asks for rapid responses, it can be considered as a
measure of implicit knowledge, and thus, the first research question
asked whether the maze task could be used successfully to develop L2
implicit knowledge for L2 learners. In order to test for a maze
training effect, we utilized a training-test paradigm with two
training groups. One training group was trained on structures
that were English-similar, whereas the other group was trained on
Spanish-specific structures (the learners’ L1 being English). The
critical findings revealed that on the post-training
maze task “test” session, there was an effect of training.
Supporting
our hypothesis, learners
who had been maze-trained
on Spanish-specific structures showed little difference in difficulty
when constructing Spanish-specific and English-similar structures (a
difference of 3 ms in RTs), whereas the learners trained on
English-similar sentences showed a substantial difference (61 ms).
The mean RTs highlighted that participants trained on English-similar
sentences experienced difficulty when constructing the
Spanish-specific sentences on which they were not trained.
Interestingly, this effect suggests that after maze training,
learners in both training groups can understand English-similar
sentences equally
as quickly,
but
training with the Spanish-specific sentences may be needed so that
learners can then construct them as quickly as the English-similar
sentences - a
result that may be related to past research where learning has been
shown to generalize in the direction of more
difficult to simple
(e.g. Eckman et al. 1988 Thompson et al. 2003).
The
findings of the post-training maze task test session suggest that
maze training is effective for language learning, and importantly,
that it can help build L2 implicit knowledge. Specifically,
we reason that
while learners may gain explicit knowledge (i.e. an understanding of
grammar rules) from class, maze task training may act to reinforce
classroom instruction, thus making this knowledge implicit. We
suggest this conclusion because what was trained in the maze task
were structures that had also been covered in class, and when
considering L2 instruction, a large body of evidence has suggested
that classroom
instruction is most effective for building explicit knowledge (De
Graaf & Housen 2009 for a summary). Thus, the maze task may play
a role in
converting explicit knowledge (i.e. representations stored
in declarative memory)
into implicit (procedural) representations, which is a key component
for eventual fluency.
An
untimed grammaticality judgment task was utilized in order to assess
carryover benefits for explicit knowledge development; this task was
completed after the maze training-test phase of the experiment. The
results showed that participants trained on Spanish-specific types
performed better (fewer errors) on both Spanish-specific and
English-similar sentence types alike. This effect can be explained in
light of the
lack of time constraints in the task. That is, when allowed time to
reflect on responses, learners trained on Spanish-specific structures
may be able to perform significantly better on a task that asks them
to judge the grammaticality of both Spanish-specific and
English-similar structures. It is therefore possible that maze task
training
has benefits
for developing explicit knowledge as well.
In
order to determine whether or not the maze
task can assist with learning as a whole, learners were given a
pretest-posttest, i.e. a paper-and-pencil
fill-in-the-blank task testing a maze-trained sentence construction.
The results showed that participants improved significantly from
pretest to posttest scores (that is,
after undergoing maze training, participants improved on a posttest
as compared to a pretest). Interestingly, this result not only
suggests that, when content is similar, maze training can positively
impact L2 learning, but also that the maze task may require an
element of sentence production as well as comprehension. These
findings thus have important implications for language learning.
Finally,
the results from the attitude questionnaire indicated that learners
were very welcoming of the maze task, that they saw the value in it,
and that they thought it was both fun and helpful for learning. These
results are interesting especially since getting language students
excited about their homework
may, at times, be a challenge. The format of this task is one that
learners are not familiar with, and thus, it may offer
them a break from their normal assignments. Furthermore, and
anecdotally, learners expressed that the task felt more like a
“videogame” than any other homework that had been assigned, which
certainly could have added to the attractiveness of the task.
In
general, getting learners to practice language skills where rapid
processing is required may prove difficult since language learners,
especially at the beginner levels, may be too unsure of their
language abilities to engage in conversation. The maze task may
therefore offer a unique opportunity for learners to practice an L2.
Moreover, the task can be completed in the comfort of students’
homes, without anyone else present, which could help to eliminate the
anxiety that may accompany practicing the L2 with others - although
the task is not meant to substitute for critical language
interaction, which is necessary for successful learning. Thus, the
conclusion that the maze task can be beneficial for learning is an
important one. However,
as using this
procedure for language learning is a new idea, with further testing,
it will be possible to investigate whether the task can assist
learning at various other proficiency levels.
5
Conclusion and Further Research
The
adage
practice
makes perfect
certainly does apply to maze task learning, and in light of the
encouraging results presented here, there may be a place for the maze
task in second language learning. Therefore, further research with
regard to developing the maze task into a more complete language
learning activity may be important to investigate. This is
particularly the case because university-aged learners are more
enthusiastic to complete their work if computer use is involved
(Blake 2012). By expanding upon the bare bone structure of the maze
task, extensions to creating a more “videogame-like” environment
could be the future for learning with this task. The maze task lends
itself well to a videogame arena partly because it requires people to
construct sentences so quickly. Task materials would preferably need
to be made available through the Internet or a smartphone, such as
with an application software.
References
Baayen,
Harald R (2008a). Analyzing
linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen,
Harald, R (2008b). languageR:
Data sets and functions with "Analyzing Linguistic Data: A
practical introduction to statistics".
Baayen,
Harald R., Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates (2008).
Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and
items. In: Journal
of Memory and Language
59 (2008), 390–412.
Blake,
Robert (2012). Best practices in online learning: Is it for everyone?
In: Rubio, Fernando, Joshua J. Thoms & Stacey Katz Bourns (Eds.)
(2012). Hybrid
language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical
and curricular issues.
Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning: AAUSC 2012 Volume, 10-26.
De
Graaf, Rick & Alex Housen (2009). Investigating the effects and
effectiveness of L2 instruction. In: Long, Michael & Catherine
Doughty (Eds.) (2009). The
handbook of language teaching.
Malden, MA: Blackwell, 726-755.
Dekeyser,
Robert & Alan Juffs (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2
learning. In: Hinkel, Eli (Ed.) (2005). Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 437-454.
Eckman,
Fred R., Lawrence Bell & Diane Nelson (1988). On the
generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of
English as a second language: In: Applied
Linguistics 9
(1988),
1-20.
Ellis,
Nick C (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning: An overview.
In: Ellis, Nick C. (Ed.) (1994). Implicit
and explicit learning of languages.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1-32.
Ellis,
Rod (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second
language: A Psychometric study: In: Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 27
(2005), 141-172.
Ellis,
Rod (1993). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In:
Ellis, Nick C. (Ed.) (1993). Implicit
and explicit language learning.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 79-114.
Ellis,
Rod (2009a). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and
instruction. In: Ellis Rod, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary
Erlam, Jenefer Philp & Hayo Reinders (Eds.) (2009). Implicit
and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing, and
teaching.
Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters, 3-25.
Ellis,
Rod (2009b). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second
language. In: Ellis Rod, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary
Erlam, Jenefer Philp & Hayo Reinders (Eds.) (2009). Implicit
and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing, and
teaching.
Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters, 237-261.
Enkin,
Elizabeth (2012). The maze task: Training methods for second language
learning: In: Arizona
Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition & Teaching 19
(2012) 5, 56-81.
Forster,
Kenneth I. (2010) Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence
processing: In: The
Mental Lexicon
5 (2010) 3, 347-357.
Forster,
Kenneth I. & Jonathan C. Forster (2003). DMDX:
A windows display program with millisecond accuracy: In: Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35
(2003) 1, 116-124.
Forster,
Kenneth. I., Christine Guerrera & Lisa Elliot (2009). The maze
task: measuring forced incremental sentence processing time: In:
Behavior Research
Methods 41 (2009)
1, 163-171.
Freedman,
Sandra E. & Kenneth I. Forster (1985). The
psychological status of overgenerated sentences: In: Cognition
19 (1985), 101-131.
Gass,
Susan, & Larry Selinker (Eds.) (1992). Language
transfer in language learning.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gasparini,
Silvia (2004). Implicit versus explicit learning: Some implications
for L2 teaching: In: European
Journal of Psychology of Education 19
(2004) (2), 203-219.
Just,
Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter & Jacqueline D. Woolley (1982).
Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension: In: Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General
111 (1982), 228-238.
Loewen,
Shawn (2009). Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of
implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In: Ellis Rod, Shawn Loewen,
Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp & Hayo Reinders
(Eds.) (2009). Implicit
and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing, and
teaching.
Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters, 94-112.
Nicol,
Janet L., Kenneth I. Forster & Csaba Veres (1997). Subject-verb
agreement processes in comprehension: In: Journal
of Memory and Language
36 (1997), 569-587.
Osterhout,
Lee & Holcomb, Phillip J. (1992). Event-related potentials
elicited by syntactic anomaly: In: Journal
of Memory and Language 31
(1992) 6 (1992), 785-806.
Pinheiro,
José C. & Douglas M. Bates (2000). Mixed-effects
models in S and S-PLUS.
NY: Springer.
Qiao,
Xiaomei, Liyao Shen & Kenneth I. Forster (2012). Relative clause
processing in Mandarin: Evidence from the maze task: In: Language
and Cognitive Processes
27 (2012) 4, 611-630.
R
Development Core Team (2013). R:
A language and environment for statistical computing.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Reichle,
Erik D., Keith Rayner & Alexander Pollatsek (2003). The E-Z
reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other
models: In: Behavioral
and Brain Sciences
26 (2003), 445-526.
Thompson,
Cynthia K., Lewis P. Shapiro, Swathi Kiran & Jana Sobecks (2003).
The role of syntactic complexity in treatment of sentence deficits in
agrammatic aphasia: The complexity account of treatment efficacy
(CATE): In: Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 46
(2003), 591-607.
Tokowicz,
Natasha & Brian MacWhinney (2005). Implicit and explicit measures
of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An
event-related potential investigation: In: Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 27
(2005), 173-204.
VanPatten,
Bill. (1987). Classroom learners’ acquisition of ser
and
estar.
Accounting for developmental patterns. In:
VanPatten, Bill, Trisha R. Dvorak & James F. Lee (Eds.) (1987).
Foreign
language learning: A research perspective.
Cambridge, MA: Newbury House, 61-75.
Witzel,
Jeffrey & Forster, Kenneth I. (2014). Lexical
co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution: In: Language,
Cognition and Neuroscience 29
(2014) 2, 158-185.
Witzel,
Naoko, Jeffrey Witzel & Kenneth I. Forster (2012). Comparisons
of online reading paradigms: eye tracking, moving window, and maze:
In: Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research 41
(2012) 2, 105-128.
Authors:
Dr. Elizabeth
Enkin
Assistant Professor of
Spanish Applied LinguisticsUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln
Department of Modern Languages and Literatures
Lincoln,
NE 68588, USA
E-mail:
eenkin@unl.edu
Kenneth
Forster
Professor of
PsychologyUniversity of Arizona
Department of Psychology
Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
E-mail:
kforster@u.arizona.edu
1
A live
demonstration of the task can be found at the following website:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kforster/MAZE/).