Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:56:27.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2019

Shaofeng Li ,
Rod Ellis  and
Yan Zhu
Shaofeng Li*
Affiliation:
Florida State University and Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Rod Ellis
Affiliation:
Curtin University
Yan Zhu
Affiliation:
Fudan University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the effects of two cognitive abilities—language analytic ability (LAA) and working memory (WM)—on language learning under five different instructional conditions. One hundred fifty eighth-grade English as a foreign language learners underwent a 2-hr treatment session. They were divided into five groups based on whether and when they received form-focused instruction. One group received pretask instruction on the linguistic target (English passive voice) before performing two narrative tasks; a second group received within-task feedback but no pretask instruction; a third group received both pretask instruction and within-task feedback; a fourth group received feedback after completing the tasks; and the fifth group only performed the tasks. The results showed that (a) LAA was predictive of the posttest scores of the group that only performed the communicative tasks and the group who received posttask feedback, (b) WM was associated with the learning outcomes of the two groups receiving within-task feedback, and (c) neither cognitive variable was implicated in the group that received pretask instruction before performing the tasks. The results suggest that the impact of LAA is evident when there is less external assistance and that WM is involved when learners face the heavy processing burden imposed by within-task feedback.

Keywords

language analytic abilitylanguage aptitudesecond language acquisitiontask-based language instructionworking memory
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , May 2019 , pp. 693 - 722
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baddeley, A. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Mota, M., and McNeill, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowles, M. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge: What can heritage learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. In Parry, T., and Stansfield, C. (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 11–29). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (2002). Manual for the MLAT. Princeton, NJ: Second Language Testing.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L., Caras, A., & Leow, R. (2016). The effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish Gustar structures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, H. (1996). Nonword span as a unique predictor of second-language vocabulary learning. Developmental Psychology, 32, 867–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, J. L., & Furby, L. (1970) How should we measure ‘change’-or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74(1), 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B., and Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C., and Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel de Abreu, P. M., & Gathercole, S. E. (2012). Executive and phonological processes in second-language acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 974–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.Google Scholar
French, L. M., & O’Brien, I. (2008). Phonological memory and children’s second language grammar learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(3), 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, K. (2009). Aptitude, phonological memory, and second language proficiency in nonnovice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwu, F., & Sun, S. (2012). The aptitude-treatment interaction effects on the learning of grammar rules. System, 40, 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwu, F., Wei, P., & Sun, S. (2014). Aptitude-treatment interaction effects on explicit rule learning: A latent growth curve analysis. Language Teaching Research, 18, 294–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V., Brooks, P., & Kharkhurin, A. (2010). Cognitive predictors of generalization of Russian grammatical gender categories. Language Learning, 60, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J., & Nam, H. Measures of implicit knowledge revisited: Processing modes, time pressure, and modality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisition and learning. In Diller, K. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 155–175). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013a). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013b). The differential roles of language analytic ability and working memory in mediating the effects of two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. In Sanz, C., and Lado, B. (Eds.), Individual differences, L2 development & language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 32–52). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2014). Recasts, working memory, and the choice of target structure. In Han, Z. (Ed.), Second language acquisition of Chinese: A series of empirical studies (pp. 103–125). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2015a). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2015b). The differential roles of working memory and language analytic ability in mediating the effects of recasts as a function of learner proficiency. In Wen, Z., Mota, M., and MacNeil, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 139–159). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 801–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2017a). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In Loewen, S., and Sato, M. (Eds.), Handbook of instructed second language learning (pp. 396–417). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017b). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction: A synthetic review. In Gurzynski, L. (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors and researchers (pp. 41–70). Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2018). Language aptitude. In Burns, A., and Richards, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to learning English as a second language (pp. 63–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linck, J., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2016). In defence of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive international feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 179–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests. Swansea: Lognostics.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimsleur, P., Reed, D., & Stansfield, C. (2004). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB). Bethesda, MD: Second Language Testing.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R. (2010). Individual differences and the effectiveness of visual feedback of reflexive binding in L2 Japanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University).Google Scholar
Sanz, C., Lin, H., Lado, B., Stafford, C., & Bowden, H. (2016). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics, 37, 669–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In Gass, S., and Mackey, A. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1991). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2016). Exploratory research on second language practice distribution: An Aptitude × Treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1017/S0142716416000084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waters, G., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Z. (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: The phonological/executive model. In Wen, Z., Mailce, B., and McNeill, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yalçın, Ş., & Spada, N. (2016). Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty: An EFL classroom-based study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, R. (2015). Measuring university-level L2 learners’ implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D. W., & Williams, R. H. (1982). Gain scores in research can be highly reliable. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19(2), 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar