Cover not available

In:Aptitude-Treatment Interaction in Second Language Learning
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser
[Benjamins Current Topics 116] 2021
► pp. 117–151

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Working memory and planning time as predictors of fluency and accuracy

 | VOXY
 | University of Maryland, College Park
Published online: 21 April 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.116.06bro
Abstract
Working memory, which accounts for the ability to process information in the face of interference, is critical to second language acquisition (SLA) and use. The interaction of working memory capacity (WMC) with specific pedagogical interventions is a logical place for empirical SLA research, both to examine the cognitive processes underpinning second language performance and to identify instructional treatments that may serve learners differently based on their WMC. This study considers WMC along with two different types of pre-task planning time (guided and unguided) as predictors of the attempted accuracy and fluency of learners’ discourse. Seventy-two intermediate ESL students from seven classes at a community college participated by completing two different working memory span tasks, as well as two different “There-and-Then” oral story-telling tasks. The treatment condition of the story-telling tasks was manipulated so that learners’ performance could be considered in terms of provision of pre-task planning (+/− planning), type of planning (guided vs. unguided), and order of planning (planning first or planning second). Task order had a clear effect on learners’ production, regardless of the provision of planning time. Guided planning time promoted a focus on attempted accuracy and unguided planning time fostered fluency. Finally, this study indicates that task conditions can affect high- and low-WMC learners in different ways: the former are more likely to comply with complex story-telling instructions, requiring them to focus on grammatical form at the expense of fluency, whereas the latter are less likely to comply with the same instructions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Task demands, cognition, and L2 performance
    • 1.2Working memory and SLA
    • 1.3Planning and SLA
    • 1.4The present study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Instruments
    • 2.3Procedures
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Descriptive statistics and initial analyses of variables
    • 3.2Planning order/conditions and WMC: Initial analyses
    • 3.3The order of the provision of planning time
      • 3.3.1Descriptive statistics split by planning order
      • 3.3.2Between-groups data analysis without the influence of task repetition
      • 3.3.3Repeated measures analyses: No planning first
      • 3.3.4Repeated measures analyses for participants who began with planning time
    • 3.4Summary of relationship among variables and planning conditions
    • 3.5Working memory
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1The influence of task order on learner fluency
    • 4.2Guided and unguided planning as predictors of fluency
    • 4.3Guided and unguided planning as predictors of attempted accuracy
    • 4.4WMC and learner production
    • 4.5Synthesis of results by planning condition and WMC
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (56)
References
Atkins, S. M., Harbison, J. I., Bunting, M. F., Teubner-Rhodes, S., & Dougherty, M. R. (2009). Measuring working memory with automated block span and automated letter-number sequencing. Poster presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, MA.
Baddeley, A. & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 62–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daneman, M. & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(1), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2009). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In. M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 119–138). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 395–406). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in WMC and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2010). Role of working memory capacity in cognitive control. Current Anthropology, 51(s1), 17–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007a). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/− Here and Now): Effects on L2 oral production. In M. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007b). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL, 45, 215–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., & Muñoz, C. (2010). Differences in attainment and performance of a second language: The role of WMC. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 19–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guará-Tavares, M. G. (2009). The relationship among pre-task planning, working memory capacity, and L2 speech performance: A pilot study. Linguagem & Ensino, 12(1), 165–194.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 WMC and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching: Reviews and Studies, 42(2), 137–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in WMC as variation in executive attention & control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 21–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 261–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kormos, J. & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 267–286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 P. Robinson (Ed.) Individual differences and instructed second language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning‐level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11‐37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nielson, K. (2014). Can planning time compensate for individual differences in working memory capacity? Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 272–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, S. (2010). The influence of pretask instructions and pretask planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 9–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, J. & Ross, B. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 proficiency development. Language Learning and Technology, 19(3), 35–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, J. & Whitney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rai, M. K., Loschky, L. C., Harris, R. J., Peck, N. R. & Cook, L. G. (2011). Effects of stress and working memory capacity on foreign language readers’ inferential processing during comprehension. Language Learning, Language Learning, 61(1), 187–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995a). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 281–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995b). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45(1), 99–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA. In P. Robinson. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language. Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 256–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed second language learning (pp. 69–93). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, flueny, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & P. Foster. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sprenger, A. M., Atkins, S. M., Colflesh, G. J. H., Briner, T. L., Buchanan, J. B., Chavis, S. E., Chen, S., Iannuzzi, G. L., Kashtelyan, V., Dowling, E., Bolger, D. J., Bunting, M. F., & Dougherty, M. R. (in preparation). A four-dimensional video game for measuring cognitive ability.
Sunderman, G. & Kroll, J. (2009). When study-abroad experience fails to deliver: The internal resources threshold effect. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 70–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Unsworth, N. & Engle, R. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114, 104–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2011). Working memory and SLA. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue