Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:44:46.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Replication in interaction and working memory research: Révész (2012) and Goo (2012)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2015

Susan Gass  and
Lorena Valmori
Susan Gass
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, [email protected]
Lorena Valmori
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues for the replication of two studies, both of which consider feedback and working memory. In the first part of this paper, we discuss the role of interaction-based research and working memory research in second language acquisition research. We then describe two studies that have unified these two areas in recent published articles and discuss ways that replication can further our knowledge in how working memory capacity can impact the benefits of feedback. We emphasize the importance of replication in a number of different areas, including grammatical complexity of the target structure and the nature of working memory tests, in scoring, actual tests, and modes of delivery. Additionally, we discuss the possibilities for replication in the area of population differences, in particular, age groups and more lasting effects as would be found in delayed post-tests. Finally, we point out another means of gathering information about thought processes and suggest the value of adding stimulated recalls to the existing data.

Type
Replication Studies
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 545 - 555
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In French, S. J. (ed.), Accent on teaching: Experiments in general education. New York: Harper, 23–46.Google Scholar
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O. & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12.5, 769–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effect of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 339–360.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28.2, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 141–150.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. In Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (eds.), AILA Review. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–17.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 175–179.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Behney, J. & Uzum, B. (2013). Inhibitory control, working memory, and L2 interaction gains. In Droździał-Szelest, K. & Pawlak, M. (eds.), Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives on second language learning and teaching. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34.3, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35.1, 127–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N. & Wa-Mbalaka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between interaction and acquisition: A quantitative metanalysis. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 91–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. & Sunderman, G. (ms). Methodological issues of working memory tasks for L2 processing research.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60.2, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2007). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Han, Z. H. (ed.), Understanding second language process. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 24–40.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 361–377.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19.1, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching 46.1, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (ed.) (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 407–452.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning 62.3, 704–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R. & Gass, S. (2012). Interactionist approach. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 7–23.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C. & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning 60.3, 501–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning 51.4, 719–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning 62.1, 93–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. & Han, Z. H. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness 3.3, 160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133–164.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2007). Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms. In Han, Z. (ed.), Understanding second language processes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 125–144.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 471–483.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A. & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts: The role of attention, memory, and analytic ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 171–195.Google Scholar
Wagner–Gough, K. & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning 25.2, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 427–441.Google Scholar