With the field of late-life language learning (LLLL) expanding fast, ample attention has been paid to cognitive benefits ensuing from LLLL. However, these studies have yielded mixed results, which may be partly explained by seniors' language learning needs not being taken into account, and theoretical insights on effective language teaching have not included seniors. In order to link seniors' language learning needs to possible cognitive benefits, and to expand the second language acquisition literature, 16 Dutch seniors took part in a three-month English course, with or without explicit grammar instruction, to ascertain the effects of more implicit versus more explicit language teaching pedagogies on cognitive flexibility. More specifically, we used linear mixed effects models to determine these methods' differential effects on attention, working memory, processing and switching speed, inhibition, and shifting and switching abilities, as subdomains of cognitive flexibility, by using a pretest-post-test-retention test design. On the digit span tasks, the explicitly taught group showed significant improvements compared to the implicitly taught group. For Dutch verbal fluency, participants' performance significantly improved regardless of condition. On the other measures, no differences between the groups were found. Hence, if the goal is to improve seniors' working memory, then explicit language instruction appears more fruitful than implicit language instruction.
Behav Sci (Basel). 2019 Mar 13;9(3):
[PMID:
30871228]
Front Aging Neurosci. 2017 Oct 24;9:340
[PMID:
29118710]
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1985 Jul;11(3):501-18
[PMID:
3160813]
Behav Neurosci. 2005 Dec;119(6):1438-47
[PMID:
16420148]
Front Aging Neurosci. 2021 Apr 27;13:550180
[PMID:
33986653]
Stroke. 2016 Jan;47(1):258-61
[PMID:
26585392]
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2002 Nov;8(7):893-906
[PMID:
12405540]
Psychol Aging. 1988 Dec;3(4):358-66
[PMID:
3268280]
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2018 Aug;40(6):586-594
[PMID:
29161963]
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 27;11(4):e0153485
[PMID:
27120179]
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40588
[PMID:
22792378]
Behav Res Methods. 2012 Jun;44(2):314-24
[PMID:
22083660]
J Psycholinguist Res. 2019 Dec;48(6):1311-1318
[PMID:
31377900]
Psychol Aging. 2020 Mar;35(2):212-219
[PMID:
32011156]
Front Neurosci. 2019 May 15;13:423
[PMID:
31156360]
Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 07;4:817
[PMID:
24223564]
Neuropsychol Rev. 2009 Dec;19(4):490-503
[PMID:
19813093]
Front Aging Neurosci. 2017 Mar 01;9:42
[PMID:
28298892]
Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2005 Dec;12(4):359-387
[PMID:
28486833]
Behav Sci (Basel). 2019 Sep 11;9(9):
[PMID:
31514429]
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Jul 15;62(7):2411-2424
[PMID:
31251679]
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Dec;37(10 Pt 2):2689-98
[PMID:
24051310]
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1987 Oct;13(4):531-41
[PMID:
2959737]
J Cogn Psychol (Hove). 2013;25(5):
[PMID:
24223260]
Trends Neurosci. 2015 Sep;38(9):571-8
[PMID:
26343956]
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2001 Dec;35(6):768-75
[PMID:
11990887]
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9
[PMID:
15817019]
Psychol Aging. 2012 Sep;27(3):742-9
[PMID:
22229388]
Psychol Aging. 2004 Dec;19(4):617-25
[PMID:
15584787]
Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2022 Nov 9;:1-11
[PMID:
36351502]
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Feb;5(2):87-96
[PMID:
14735112]
