Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Re-examining Individual Differences in Working Memory , Learner Awareness of L2 Forms and L2 Development through
Recasts on Task-basked Interaction
DAI Binbin Amy
The Chinese University of Hong Kong E-mail: [email protected]
The 3rd international conference on TBLT University of Lancaster, Sep
13-16 2009
facilitative for language learning
Empirical studies linking working memory (WM) capacity & noticing
(1) Mackey et al. (2002)
(2) Trofimovich et al. (2007)
Weak relationship(p=0.051)
No relationship
What have been done?
However,Very few studies have made an attempt
to link the understanding level with WM capacity !!
Roberts (1995) & Mackey et al. (2007): L2 proficiency noticing & understanding
(1) To make an attempt to explore the relationship between WM capacity and understanding(2) L2 proficiency levels will be regarded as an independent variable
Therefore,
Besides,
Noticing: stimulated recall & exit questionnaireWorking memory: English non-word recall, L1&L2 listening span tests
Noticing: visually cued discriminationWorking memory: letter-number sequencing test
The effect of WM capacity on interaction- driven L2 development
Ando et al. (1992)
Grammar Approach (Higher WM, More development)
VS.
Communicative Approach (Lower WM, More development)
Mackey et al. (2002) Lower WM, More development
(immediate posttest)
Sagarra (2007) Higher WM, More development
(delayed posttest)
Trofimovich et al. (2007)
No relationship in immediate posttest
Research Questions
Is there a relationship between WM capacity and learner awareness of recasts in interactional feedback at respective two levels (noticing and understanding)?
Is there a relationship between learners’ L2 proficiency levels and their awareness of recasts in interactional feedback at respective two levels (noticing and understanding)?
What are the effects of learners’ L2 proficiency and WM capacity on their L2 improvement?
Learner participants: (non-English major/ undergraduates/ mainland
China) Age (Number of participants)
18 (4) 19 (6) 20 (4) 21 (6) 22 (3) 23 (1)
Gender(Number of participants)
Male Female
8 16
Major(Number of participants)
Science Arts
18 6
Grade(Number of participants)
One Two Three
12 2 10
Mother tongue All Mandarin
Other languagesAll English
( including two have learnt some Japanese)
Age of starting learning English
(Number of participants)7-9 (3)
10 (5) 11(3) 12 (3) 13 (8) 14 (2)
Learning experience abroad All None
The background information of learner participants (24)
How did I design my research?
Learner participants
Voluntary participation Proficiency levels
C-test (mean=46.13, SD=6.05) (high 47 vs. low 46)≧ ≦
WM capacity levels
Composite score= z (Non-word) + z (L2 listening span) (high>0 vs. low<0)
51 freshmen in XJTU: two classes, one English teacher Four extracts of English articles (Dörnyei and Katona, 1992) Cronbach's Alpha=.770 Concurrent validity
(1) C-test (June 17) & Term Proficiency Test (May 25) ( r =.583, p<0.01) (2) C-test (June 17) & CET-4 (June 21) ( r =.633, p<0.01)
The phonological loop
Central executive component
Non-word recall test
L2 listening span test
42 English non-words from Prof. Skehan’s project in CUHK
3 sets per each sentence span level (2-5), 42 sentences in total
24 participants selected among a large number of students for:
Assumptions for two-way ANOVA:Shapiro-Wilk normality tests & Homogeneity of variances tests
Normal distribution of both scores of c-test and WM test Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances (ns) No significant difference among each group at the beginning
Native speaker interlocutors
Two male experienced interlocutors
Four carefully designed training procedures
Watching the video of the instructionof recasts
Demonstrating b&g examplesfrom the video clips of pilot study
Role-playing all tasks involved(video-taped)
Reflecting the role-playing process
Individual training
Procedure
Working memory test & C-test (1)
Pretest (1/5)
Treatment 1(2/1)
Treatment 2 (2/2)
Treatment 3 (2/3)
Stimulated recall (2/4)
Delayed posttest (5/5)
Immediate posttest (2/4)
Procedure (Week/ Day)
Materials
Treatment and assessment tasks
Task Linguistic target Type Direction of information
Spot-the-difference English questions
Information exchange
Two-way
Picture-drawing English questions
Information gap
One-wayStory-telling English past tense
Information gap
One-way
Task sequence was all the same in both treatment sessions and tests.
(10 mins)
(10 mins)
Stimulated recall
has been applied as an introspective measure of L2 learners’ cognitive processes, especially noticing.
Immediately after the first posttest
Video clips of nearly all of LREs (Language-related episodes)
15%-20% distracters & self-initiated recall allowed at any time
(recasts of non-linguistic targets / correct responses etc.)
Pausing at the end of each LRE and asking “what were you thinking at that time?” (strict training for the researcher)
L1 of recall comments
Coding and scoring: stimulated recall comments
Stimulated Recall Comments (LRES)
Focus on Meaning Focus on Form Others (Other, No Thoughts, Thoughts Forgotten)
Noticing L2 Form Understanding L2 Form
Noticing: a verbal reference to the target structures without or with mention of rules.
Understanding: an explicit formulation of the rule underlying the target structures
Scoring: “one noticing/understanding, one point” policy number of N/Unoticing/understanding ratio= total number of comments
Scoring and coding : task performance
Question formation
6 Stages based on Pienemann & Johnston (1987) and adapted from a series of studies
2 different higher level structures in two different tasks coded as development
Past tense
Targetlike forms in obligatory contexts were counted — accuracy of production
What did I find in my research?The relationship between WM & Awareness
Questions: Understanding data: none from recall comments
Noticing
(percentage)
WMC
Mean SD
High 21.89 26.65
Low 12.29 18.24
p=0.27 ns
Past tense Noticing (percentage)
WMC Mean SD
high 40.27 27.43
low 22.19 14.42
p=0.056 d=0.87
Understanding (percentage)
WMC Mean SD
high 18.32 21.26
low 11.15 10.12
p=0.64 ns
The relationship between L2 proficiency & Awareness
Questions
Past tense
Noticing (%)Proficiency Mean SD
high 10.09 14.77
low 24.08 27.72
Noticing (%)Proficiency Mean SD
high 29.06 26.30
low 33.39 20.89
p=0.11, ns
Understanding (%)Proficiency Mean SD
high 19.26 18.01
low 10.22 14.61
p=0.44, ns
p=0.64, ns
L2 proficiency, WM & interaction-driven development Questions
WMCL2 development High Low Total
Development 3 8 11
No development 9 4 13
Total 12 12 24
p=0.041
WMCL2 development High Low Total
Development 2 8 10
No development 10 4 14
Total 12 12 24
p=0.013
Delayed Post-test
Post-test
Questions
WMCL2 development High Low Total
Development 3 8 11
No development 9 4 13
Total 12 12 24
Post-test
WMCL2 development High Low Total
Development 2 8 10
No development 10 4 14
Total 12 12 24
Delayed Post-test
WMCL2 development High Low Total
Development 3 8 11
No development 9 4 13
Total 12 12 24
Post-test
Questions
WMCL2 development High Low Total
Development 2 8 10
No development 10 4 14
Total 12 12 24
Delayed Post-test
WMCL2 development High Low Total
Development 3 8 11
No development 9 4 13
Total 12 12 24
Post-test
Questions
ProficiencyL2 development High Low Total
Development 5 6 11
No development 7 6 13
Total 12 12 24
Delayed Post-test
ProficiencyL2 development High Low Total
Development 6 5 11
No development 6 7 13
Total 12 12 24
Post-test
L2 proficiency, WM & interaction-driven development
p=0.68 ns
p=0.68 ns
L2 proficiency, WM & interaction-driven development
Variables WM (Means) Sig.
EffectSize(d)
Proficiency (Means) Sig.
EffectSize (d)
Interaction WM*Pro
High Low High Low Sig.
Posttest 58.02 46.75 .26 .49 46.47 58.29 .24 .52 .04
Delayed posttest
67.96 59.32 .27 .48 61.27 66.01 .54 .27 .04
Past tense
lowhigh
Proficiency
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
Mean P
Tposttest
low
high
WMC
lowhigh
WMC
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
Mean P
Tposttest low
high
Proficiency
Interaction (WM*Pro) in the posttest
lowhigh
Proficiency
80.00
75.00
70.00
65.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
Mean P
Tdela
yedposttest
low
high
WMC
lowhigh
WMC
80.00
75.00
70.00
65.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
Mean P
Tdela
yedposttest
low
high
Proficiency
Interaction (WM*Pro) in the delayed posttest
Development over time
Past tense
Variables Sig. Test of Sphericity
Test .000 Sig.=.149(assumption was met)
Test*Proficiency .598
Test*WMC .572
Test*WM*Proficiency .092
Provisional ConclusionThe relationship between WM capacity & noticing
Questions: showing the trend towards “High WM-High Noti” (ns)
Past tense: showing the trend towards “High WM-High Noti” (ns but large effect size)
The relationship between WM capacity & understanding Questions: data unavailable Past tense: showing the trends towards “HWM-HUnder” (ns)
The relationship between proficiency level & noticing
Questions & Past tense: showing the trend towards “LPro-HNoti” (ns) The relationship between proficiency level & understanding
Questions: data unavailable Past tense: showing the trend towards “HPro-HUnder” (ns)
The effects of proficiency and WM on L2 development Questions: Low WM capacity — more development (both posttests) Past tense: LProHWM —more development (both posttests)
References
• Ando, J., Fukunaga, N., Kurahashi, J., Suto, T., Nakano, T., & Kage, M. (1992). A comparative study on two EFL teaching methods: The communicative and the grammatical approach. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 247-256.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Katona, L. (1992). Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL learners. Language Testing, 9 (2), 187-206.
• Mackey, A. , AI-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama M., Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1), 129-152.
• 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. 181-209). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
References
• Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying Second Language Acquisition Research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.
• Roberts, M.A. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention & awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 163-182). Hawaii: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
• 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.229-248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 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.144-171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Question & Answers
My Email:
