In:Expanding Individual Difference Research in the Interaction Approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 16] 2017
► pp. 41–70
Chapter 3The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction
A synthetic review
Published online: 12 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.16.03li
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.16.03li
Abstract
This study reports a comprehensive and in-depth synthesis of the theory and research on the role of working memory and language aptitude in mediating the process and product of second language (L2) interaction. The synthesis integrates meta-analysis and narrative review, using the former approach to aggregate the results and the latter to report themes and patterns that emerged from the studies. Altogether 24 studies were retrieved examining the relationships between the two cognitive variables and various aspects of L2 interaction. With regard to working memory, the results showed that (1) it had significant, albeit weak, associations with the effects of corrective feedback, (2) its associations with noticing the gap and producing modified output were variable and inconsistent, and (3) whereas phonological short-term memory may facilitate the development of oral ability, executive working memory may be essential for oral performance. Unlike working memory’s weak predictive power, language aptitude was found to be a strong predictor of the effects of corrective feedback. However, similar to the pattern for working memory, language aptitude was significantly more correlated with the effects of explicit feedback than those of implicit feedback. The overall weak effects of working memory were attributable to the salience of the instructional treatments and the methodological inconsistency of the primary studies such as the diverse measures of noticing. The finding that both working memory and language aptitude were more heavily implicated in explicit than implicit treatments points to the need to explore implicit language learning abilities.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Background
- Theoretical bases
- The predictor variables: Working memory and language aptitude
- Working memory
- Language aptitude
- The criterion variables: Effectiveness of corrective feedback, noticing, and modified output
- Corrective feedback
- Noticing
- Modified output
- The current synthesis
- Method
- Coding
- Analysis
- Results
- Working memory and the effects of corrective feedback
- Overall
- Recasts
- Explicit versus implicit feedback
- Working memory and noticing
- Working memory and modified output
- Working memory and oral gains and production
- Language aptitude and the effects of corrective feedback
- Aptitude and other aspects of interaction
- Working memory and the effects of corrective feedback
- Discussion and conclusion
- Working memory
- Language aptitude
References Appendix
References (57)
(Studies with asterisks are included in this synthesis)
*Ahn, S. (2012). The relationships between grammatical sensitivity, noticing of recasts, and learning of Korean objective relative clauses through conversational interaction. Applied Language Learning, 22, 47–68.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
Baddeley, A. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen, M. Mota, & A. McNeil (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
*Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
*Chen, X. (2013). Chinese EFL learners’ noticing of recasts: Its relation to target structures, uptake, and working memory capacity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing.
*Dai, B. (2013). Individual differences in learners’ working memory, noticing of L2 forms in recasts, and their L2 development in task-based Interactions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.
*Fujii, A. (2005). Individual differences in task performance: Aptitude profiles, orientation to form, and second language production in the EFL classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
Granena, G. (2015). Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 577–600.
*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.
*Lado, B. (2008). The role of bilingualism, type of feedback, and cognitive capacity in the acquisition of non-primary languages: A computer-based study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
*Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.
*Li, S. (2010). Corrective feedback in perspective: The interface between feedback type, proficiency, the choice of target structure, and learners’ individual differences in working memory and language analytic ability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing.
(2013b). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654.
(2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408.
(2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 801–342
(2017). Cognitive differences in instructed second language acquisition. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.) Handbook of instructed second language learning (pp. 396–417). NY: Routledge.
Li, S., Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2012). Doing meta-analysis in SLA: Practices, choices, and standards. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, 384, 1–17.
Linck, J., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., Smith, B. K., Bunting, M. F., & Doughty, C. J. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.
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, 861–83.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Lyster, R. (2004). Different effects of prompts and effects in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
*Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
*Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fuji, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of feedback, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
*Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704–740.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
*McMullin, J. (1988). The effects of gender and the total physical response strategy on the retention of French commands by seventh-grade black students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
*Nagata, H., Aline, D., & Ellis, R. (1999). Modified input, language aptitude, and the acquisition of word meanings. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 133–149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
*Payne, J., & Ross, B. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 35–54.
*Payne, S., & Whitney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
*Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.): Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
*Sachs, R. (2010). Individual differences and the effectiveness of visual feedback on reflexive binding in Japanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
*Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 230–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Explicit and implicit learning of language (pp. 165–209). London: Academic Press.
*Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–321). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). New York, NY: Routledge.
(2015). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 367–384.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
*Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.): Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wen, Z. (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: The phonological/executive model. In Z. Wen, B. Mailce, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 41–62). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Winke, P. (2005). Individual differences in adult Chinese second language acquisition: The relationships between aptitude, memory, and strategies for language learning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Yalçın, Ş., Çeçen, S., & Erçetin, G. (2016). The relationship between aptitude and working memory: an instructed SLA context. Language Awareness, 25, 144–158.
*Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.
Cited by (16)
Cited by 16 other publications
Chen, Liping & Wei Dan
Dong, Zhiyin Renee, Chao Han & Shaofeng Li
Liang, Yan & Lawrence Jun Zhang
Jiang, Ci, Fang Liu, Yifei Gong, Yi Cao & Jianlin Chen
Sato, Yusuke
2023. The relationships between individual differences in working memory and language analytical ability and the effectiveness of different types of corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Studies 6:1 ► pp. 183 ff.
Torres, Julio
Xu, Mingfei & Simin Zeng
TEIMOURI, YASSER, FARHAD TABANDEH & SOMAYEH TAHMOURESI
Chalmers, James, Susana A. Eisenchlas, Andrew Munro & Andrea C. Schalley
Ruiz, Simón, Patrick Rebuschat & Detmar Meurers
Wen, Zhisheng (Edward) & Peter Skehan
Pawlak, Mirosław
2020. The effect of proficiency, gender, and learning style on the occurrence of negotiated interaction in communicative task
performance. In Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and Their Individual Differences [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 53], ► pp. 51 ff.
Fu, Mengxia & Shaofeng Li
2019. The associations between individual differences in working memory and the effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Studies 2:2 ► pp. 233 ff.
Fu, Mengxia & Shaofeng Li
2021. The associations between individual differences in working memory and the effectiveness of immediate and delayed
corrective feedback. In Aptitude-Treatment Interaction in Second Language Learning [Benjamins Current Topics, 116], ► pp. 69 ff.
Li, Shaofeng
2018. Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback. In Critical Reflections on Data in Second Language Acquisition [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 51], ► pp. 33 ff.
Li, Shaofeng
2024. Individual differences and task-based language teaching. In Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching [Task-Based Language Teaching, 16], ► pp. 10 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
