View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Relationship between
attentional processing of input and working memory: an eye-tracking study
Bimali Indrarathne Judit Kormos
Lancaster University
Attention
Attention is “taking possession by the mind, in
clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem
several simultaneously possible objects or trains
of thought” (James, 1890, p. 403-404)
Consciousness
Understanding of one’s experiences (Max
Velmans, 2009; Nagel, 1974)
Background
Attention with
consciousness
Attention without
consciousness
WM
Koch and Tsuchiya (2006)
Background
comprehension of L2 input
processing and encoding this perceived
input into long-term memory
directing learners’ attention to the relevant
features of the input
Working
memory &
input
processing
Background
WM model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974-2015)
Central
Executive
Phonological
loop
Visuospatial
sketchpad Episodic buffer
temporary store
articulatory
information
temporary store
visual and spatial
information
coordinating the subsidiary
memory system switching attention
controlling encoding retrieval strategies
Inhibition Monitoring & updating
temporary store
combine
information from
different sections
Background
Existing research on WM –
grammar learning link
Background
Working
memory
components
assessed
Learning
conditions
Outcome
measures
Relationship with
WM components
Ellis & Sinclair (1996) PSTM Implicit
Implicit
Explicit knowledge
Implicit knowledge
Significant
Significant
Williams & Lovatt (2003) PSTM Implicit Explicit knowledge Significant
Martin & Ellis (2012) PSTM Implicit Explicit knowledge Significant
Grey et al. (2015) PSTM Implicit
Implicit
Implicit knowledge
Explicit knowledge
Non-significant
Non-significant
Santamaria and
Sunderman (2015)
PSTM Explicit Explicit Significant
Robinson (2005) PSTM Explicit
Implicit
Explicit
Implicit
Significant
Non-significant
Tagarelli, Borges Mota and
Rebuschat (2011, 2015)
PSTM
Complex WM
Explicit
Implicit
Implicit
Implicit
Non-significant
Non-significant
?
?
?
?
OVERVIEW
Background
Explicit
knowledge
Implicit
knowledge
Explicit condition √ x
Implicit condition ? ?
Research design
PR
E T ES T
PO
S T T E
S T
Control group
unenhanced unenhanced unenhanced
enhanced only enhanced only enhanced only
enhanced + instructions
enhanced + instructions
enhanced + instructions
enhanced + instructions
enhanced +
instructions
enhanced +
instructions
PPT- explicit
explanation
WORK
ING
MEMO
RY T
ESTS
A
B
C
D
How the functioning of WM including both
phonological loop and central executive
functions is related to the change in
knowledge of the target grammatical
construction ‘causative had’ in different
input conditions
How the functioning of the WM including
both phonological loop and central
executive functions is related to the
attention paid to target items
Aims of the study
To investigate....
100 undergraduates at a Sri Lankan university
Age between 18-22
First language Sinhala speakers
Had been learning English as an L2
B1/low B2 level of proficiency
20 in a group
Methodology
Participants
Three stories
Controlled for length, word frequency
Target construction– causative ‘had’ –
E.g. I had my car repaired (BNC)
7 examples in each story – 21 in total
Every other day for one week (3 times)
Methodology
Input
Tobii X2-60 portable eye tracker fixed to a laptop
Slides were prepared on PowerPoint first: 24-point, double-spaced Calibri
Areas of Interest (AOI) - example of the target structure
All words of the AOI placed in one line
Methodology
Eye-tracking
Sentence Reconstruction items (6/20) – written (explicit/implicit knowledge)
Sarah got someone to print invitation cards for her party.
Sarah had .....................................
Timed Grammaticality Judgement items (10/40) – listening (implicit knowledge)
My dad had his lunch delivered to his office yesterday.
Correct/Incorrect
Free writing task
Examples from BNC
Controlled for length
Methodology
Pre and post tests
Forward digit-span
Phonological loop
Plus-minus task
Switching
Keep-track task
Updating
Stroop task
inhibition
Methodology
WM tests
Functions of the CE
Data analysis
Methodology
Eye-tracking data
Total fixation duration on AOIs (TFD)
Difference between observed and expected
total fixation duration – as a proportion of the
whole page based on the number of syllables
(ΔOE)
WM test data
Pre/post test data
Preliminary analyses
Groups comparable in terms of WM
abilities
Correlational analysis of WM test scores
Factor analysis – composite score for
Keep-track, Stroop and Digit-span
Keep-
track
Plus-
Minus
Stroop
Digit span .818** .112 -.530**
Keep-track .119 -.455**
Plus-Minus -.069
Results
How is the functioning of WM including
both phonological loop and central
executive functions related to the change
in knowledge of the target grammatical
construction ‘causative had’ in different
input conditions?
Results
Research question 1
Correlational analysis
Results
Whole sample
SR gain
score
GJ gain
score
Digit
Span
Spearman rho .570* .648*
p <.001 <.001
Keep
Track
Spearman rho .519* .576*
p <.001 <.001
Stroop Spearman rho -.568* -.547*
p <.001 <.001
Results
Composite WM score vs SR
gain score – Spearman rho
Results
Composite WM score vs GJ
gain score – Spearman rho
Results
Influence of WM across groups (SR) –
multiregression analysis
Instruction to
pay attention
interaction effect between the treatment condition and the composite WM score (Wald χ2 = 23.089, p <.001)
the unenhanced group statistically different from enhanced+instructions (β=1.105, p <.001) and the enhanced+instructions+explanation group (β=.973, p <.001).
Results
Influence of WM across groups
(GJ) – multiregression analysis
How the functioning of the WM including
both phonological loop and central
executive functions is related to the
attention paid to target items?
Results
Research question 2
Results
Correlational analysis
Digit
Span
Keep
track
Stroop
Mean
TFD
Spearman
rho
.250 .279 -.307*
p .097 .064 .040
Mean
ΔOE
Spearman
rho
.327* .394* -.310*
p .028 .007 .038
Results
Composite WM score vs TFD &
DOE – Spearman rho
Results
Influence of WM across groups (TFD) –
multiregression analysis
Instruction to pay
attention
interaction effect
(Wald χ2 = 34.49, p
<.001)
unenhanced group
statistically different from
enhanced+ instructions
(β=.274, p=.042) and
enhanced+ instructions+
explanation groups (β=.723,
p <.001).
Results
Influence of WM across groups (DOE) –
multiregression analysis
Instruction to
pay attention
unenhanced group
statistically different from
enhanced+ instructions
(β=.395, p=.001 ) and
enhanced+ instructions+
explanation groups
(β=.608, p <.001).
Interaction effect
Wald χ2 = 29.178, p
<.001
Discussion
Phonological loop
+
Central Executive
Attention regulation
Explicit input/ Implicit
knowledge
Implicit input/ Implicit
knowledge
Explicit input/ Explicit
knowledge
Linck, Osthus, Koeth and Bunting (2013)
Ellis & Sinclair (1996)
Robinson (2005)
Implicit input/ Explicit
knowledge
Ahmadian (2015)
√
√
√
√
√
Thank you
Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
Baralt, M. (2015). Working memory capacity, cognitive complexity and L2 recasts in online language teaching. In Z. Wen, M. Borges & A. McNeill (Eds.). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 248-269). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, N.C., & Sinclair, S.G. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49A (1), 234-250.
Erçetin, G. & Alptekin, C. (2013). The explicit/implicit knowledge distinction and working memory: Implications for second-language reading comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 727-753.
Grey, S., Williams, J.N., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Individual differences in incidental language learning: Phonological working memory, learning styles, and personality. Learning and Individual Differences 38, 44–53.
Hassin, R. R., Bargh, J. A., Engell, A. D., & McCulloch, K. C. (2009). Implicit working memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 665–678.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt. Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language.
Second Language Research 21(2), 121–151. Juffs, A. (2006). Working memory, second language acquisition and low-educated second language and literacy
learners. Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics, Occasional Series, 89–104.
Koch, C. & Tsuchiya, N. (2006). Attention and consciousness: two distinct brain processes. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 11(1), 16-22.
Linck, J.A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J.T. & Bunting, M.F. (2013). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1-23.
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 language learning (pp. 181-210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
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, 379– 413.
Max Velmans, G. (2009). How to define consciousness—and how not to define consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 16(5), 139-156.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review 83, 435-450. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental
L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.
References
Santamaria, K. & Sunderman, G. (2015). Working memory in processing instruction: The acquisition of French
clitics. In Z. Wen, M. Borges & A. McNeill (Eds.). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 205-223). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Saggara, 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. 229-248). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2010) The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number
agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua, 120, 2022–2039. Soto, D., & Silvanto, J. (2014). Reappraising the relationship between working memory and conscious
awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 520-525. Tagarelli, K.M., Borges Mota, M. & Rebuschat, P. (2011). The role of working memory in implicit and explicit
language learning. In L. Carlson, C. Holscher & T. Shipley (Eds.). Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2016-2066). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
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. 171-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid abilities: Examining the correlation between operation span and raven. Intelligence, 33, 67– 81.
Williams, J.N., & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53 (1), 67-121
References
Recommended