Effects of Interleaving on Indian Adult ESL Learners’ Oral Interaction in English
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63635/mrj.v1i1.196Abstract
The mixing and spacing technique used in interleaving has been described to facilitate memorization and transfer of learning more effectively than blocking. The principal objective of the present study was to examine the difference in the effect of interleaving and blocking on interaction performance in English during a three-month-long L2 training programme. The study measured the difference in the effect of the two methods at various stages of the training programme. Two groups of 44 Indian undergraduate English as L2 learners practised interaction in English using interleaving and blocking. One interaction test for the distribution of the participants into interleaving and blocking groups and three interaction tests to measure the difference in the effect of the two methods on the interaction performance of the participants at various stages of the training programme were taken to collect data for the study. The p-value of the comparison calculated using a repeated measures ANOVA test was 0.81 reflecting a similarly low F-value of 0.061 and effect size of 0.003. Although no significant positive effect of interleaving and blocking on interaction performance in English was observed in the study, blocking demonstrated a slightly better interaction performance than interleaving.
Downloads
References
[1] Canals, L. The role of the language of interaction and translanguaging on attention to interactional feedback in virtual exchanges. System, 2022, 105, 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102721
[2] Cash, A. H.; Pianta, R. C. Associations between teachers’ skill in identifying effective interactions and children’s gains in language, literacy, and early learning behaviors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2022, 62, 324-334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.09.008
[3] Tekin, O.; Trofimovich, P.; Chen, T.-H.; McDonough, K. Alignment in second language speakers’ perceptions of interaction and its relationship to perceived communicative success. System, 2022, 108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102848
[4] Thoms, J. J. Classroom discourse in foreign language classrooms: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals. 2012, 45, s8-s27, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01177.x
[5] Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M.Teacher student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2002, 22, 186-203, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000107
[6] Brown, H.D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 6th ed.; Prentice Hall Inc: London, 2014
[7] Hermanto, H. Understanding teacher talk to support students’ communicative competence. Jurnal Sosial Humaniora, 2015, 8, 143-159, https://doi.org/10.12962/j24433527.v8i2.1249
[8] Mayo, M. D. P. G.; Soler, E. A. Negotiated input and output/ interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition; Herschensohn, J., Young- Scholten, M., Eds., Cambridge University Press: New York, 2013; pp. 209-229
[9] Van Lier, L. The Classroom and the Language Learner. Longman: London, 1988
[10] Mackey, A.; Abbuhl, R.; Gass, S. M. Interactionist approach. In The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition; Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., Eds., Taylor & Francis Group: New York, 2012; pp. 7-23, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000423
[11] Markee, N.; Kasper, G. Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 2004, 88, 491-500, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-14-.x
[12] Seedhouse, P.; Jenks, C. International perspectives on ELT classroom interaction. In International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction; Jenks, C. J., Seedhouse, P., Eds., Palgrave MacMillan: Hampshire, 2015; pp. 1-9
[13] Murray, D. E.; Christison, M. What English Language Teachers Need to Know. Taylor & Francis: New York, 2011; https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv002
[14] Ur, P. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge University Press: UK, 2009, https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
[15] Walsh, S. Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. Routledge: Oxon, 2011
[16] Long, M. H. Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1983, 5, 177-193, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848
[17] Hall, G. Exploring English Language Teaching: Language in Action. Routledge: New York, 2011
[18] DeKeyser, R. Practice in Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2007
[19] Ellis, R.; Shintani, N. Exploring Language Pedagogy Through Second Language Acquisition Research. Routledge: London, 2014
[20] Kakoti, S.; Doley, S. K. English speaking skill and Indian undergraduate ESL learners: Interleaving or block practice? Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 2021, 13, 1-22, https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v13n4.57
[21] Nakata, T.; Suzuki, Y. Mixing grammar exercises facilitates long- term retention: Effects of blocking, interleaving, and increasing practice. Modern Language Journal, 2019, 103, 629-647, https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12581
[22] Suzuki, Y. The optimal distribution of practice for the acquisition of L2 morphology: A conceptual replication and extension. Language Learning, 2017, 67, 512-545, https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12236
[23] Suzuki, Y. Optimizing fluency training for speaking skills transfer: Comparing the effects of blocked and interleaved task repetition. Language Learning, 2021, 71, 285-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12433
[24] Suzuki, Y.; Sunada, M. Dynamic interplay between practice type and practice schedule in a second language: The potential and limits of skill transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2020, 42, 169-197, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000470
[25] Suzuki, Y.; Yokosawa, S.; Aline, D. The role of working memory in blocked and interleaved grammar practice: Proceduralization of L2 syntax. Language Teaching Research, 2022, 26, 671-695, https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913985
[26] Battig, W.F. Intra-task interference as a source of facilitation in transfer and retention. In Topics in Learning and Performance; Thompson, R..F., Voss, J.F., Eds., Academic Press: New York, 1972; pp. 131-159
[27] Dunlosky, J.; Rawson, K.A.; Marsh, E.J.;Nathan M.J.; Willingham, D.T. Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2013, 14, 4-58, https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.
[28] Kang, S. H. The benefits of interleaved practice for learning. In From the Laboratory to the Classroom: Translating Science of Learning for Teachers; Horvath, J. C., Lodge, J. M., Hattie, J., Eds., Routledge: New York, 2016; pp. 79–93
[29] Kornell, N.; Bjork, R.A. Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction?”. Psychological Science, 2008, 19, 585–592, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x
[30] Pan, S. C.; Tajran, J.; Lovelett, J.; Osuna, J.; Rickard, T.C. Does interleaved practice enhance foreign language learning? The effects of training schedule on Spanish verb conjugation skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2019, 111, 1172-1188, https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000336
[31] Roediger, H.L.; Pyc, M.A. Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2012, 1, 242-248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.002
[32] Schmidt, R.A.; Bjork, R.A. New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 1992, 3, 207-218, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x
[33] Soderstrom, N. C.; Bjork, R. A. Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2015, 10, 176–199, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000
[34] Yan, V.X.; Soderstrom, N.C.; Seneviratna, G.S.; Bjork, E.L.; Bjork, R.A. How should exemplars be sequenced in inductive learning? Empirical evidence versus learners’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2017, 23, 403-416, https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000139
[35] Finkbeiner, M.; Nicol, J. Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2003, 24, 369–383, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000195
[36] Miles, S. W. Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for L2 grammar learning. System, 2014, 42, 412–428, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.014
[37] Nakata, T. Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary learning: Does gradually increasing spacing increase vocabulary learning? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2015, 37, 677–711, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000825
[38] Rogers, J. The spacing effect and its relevance to second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 2017, 38, 906–911, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw052
[39] Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2012, 26, 97-103, https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1801
[40] Wahlheim, C. N.; Dunlosky, J.; Jacoby, L. L. Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: An investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and ageing. Memory & Cognition,2011, 39, 750- 763, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0063-y
[41] Rohrer, D.; Taylor, K. M. The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 2007, 35, 481-498, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11251-007-9015-8
[42] Goldstone, R.L. Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 1996, 24, 608–628, https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03201087
[43] Carvalho, P. F.; Goldstone, R. L. Putting category learning in order: category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory & Cognition, 2014, 42, 481–495, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0371-0
[44] Zulkiply, N.; Burt, J. S. The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & Cognition, 2013, 41, 16–27, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0238-9
[45] Porter, J. M.; Landin, D.; Herbert, E.P.; Baum, B. The effect of three levels of contextual interference on performance outcomes and movement patterns in golf skills. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2007, 2, 243-255, https://doi.org/10.1260/174795407782233100
[46] Porter, J. M.; Magill, R. A. Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sports skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2010, 28, 1277–1285, https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.502946
[47] Wong, A. W. K.; Whitehill, T. L.; Ma, E. P.-M.; Masters, R. Effects of practice schedules on speech motor learning. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2013, 15, 511–523, https://doi.org/:10.3109/17549507.2012.761282
[48] Carpenter, S.K. Spacing and interleaving of study and practice. In Applying Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum; Benassi, V.A., Overson, C.E., Hakala, C.M., Eds., Society for the Teaching of Psychology, 2014; pp. 131-141
[49] Carpenter, S. K.; Mueller, F. E. The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory & Cognition, 2013, 41, 671-682, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0291-4
[50] Schneider, V. I.; Healy, A. F.; Bourne, L. E. Contextual interference effects in foreign language vocabulary acquisition and retention. In Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention; Healy A.F., Bourne, L.E., Eds., Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 1998; pp.77–90
[51] Schneider, V. I.; Healy, A. F.; Bourne, L. E. What is learned under difficult conditions is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 2002, 46, 419–440, https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2813
[52] Bjork, R.A. Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing; Metcalfe, J., Shimamura, A. P., Eds., The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994; pp.185–205
[53] Liskinasih, A. Corrective feedbacks in CLT- adopted classrooms’ interactions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2016, 60-69, https://doi.org/10.17509/ ijal.v6i1.2662
[54] Roostini, K. E. A reflection on teacher questioning types. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2011, 1, 9-22, https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v1i1.96
[55] Brunmair, M.; Richter, T. Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 2019, 145, 1029-1052, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000209
[56] Bjork, R. A. Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In Attention and Performance XVII: Cognitive Regulation of Performance: Interaction of Theory and Application; Gopher, D., Koriat, A., Eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1999; pp.435–459
Downloads
Abstract Display: 0 
PDF Downloads: 0 PDF Downloads: 0 Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright © Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
