Working Memory and Reactivity

Language Learning

ISSN 0023-8333

Working Memory and Reactivity Jaemyung Goo Georgetown University

The present study explores the relationship between working memory capacity (WMC) and think-alouds, focusing on the issue of reactivity. Two WM span tasks (listening span and operation span) were administered to 42 English-speaking learners of Spanish. Learner performance on reading comprehension and written production was measured under two experimental conditions (think-aloud vs. non-think-aloud conditions). Results showed that think-alouds had negatively affected learner performance on reading comprehension, indicating the presence of reactive effects. Particularly interesting is the finding that reactive effects of think-alouds seem to have occurred in the course of rule learning among the high-WMC learners, but not among the low-WMC learners. The findings suggest that individual differences in WMC should be taken into careful consideration in future research that involves think-aloud protocols.

Keywords Second language acquisition (SLA); working memory capacity (WMC); reactivity; think-alouds

Reflecting SLA researchers’ growing interest in second language (L2) learners’ attention and awareness, much research has employed concurrent verbal reporting such as think-alouds as a useful methodological tool for examining The initial report of this study was presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (Washington, DC, March 29–April 1, 2008). I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Alison Mackey and Dr. Ron Leow for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the article and Dr. Michael Long for his comments on the project and help with recruiting participants. I am grateful to the three anonymous Language Learning reviewers for their insightful feedback and wonderful comments and to Dr. Robert DeKeyser for his helpful editing suggestions. Above all, I am deeply indebted to my lovely colleague and friend, Gisela Granena, for her invaluable help with the Spanish materials and her assistance in the entire data collection process.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jaemyung Goo, Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, 37th and O Sts., NW, Washington, DC 20057. Internet: jg349@georgetown.edu [Corrections added after online publication 5/14/10: On page 1, the words “first-language” have been removed from the second sentence of the abstract. On page 29, note 1: Gf has been corrected to gF. Wiley-Blackwell apologizes for these errors.]

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

C 2010 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00573.x

712

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

L2 learners’ cognitive processes (e.g., Alanen, 1995; Leow, 1997, 1998, 2000; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999; Sachs & Polio, 2007; Sachs & Suh, 2007; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Despite the ever-increasing use of think-aloud protocols, concerns have not completely disappeared about the possibility that having learners verbalize their thoughts while completing a task may lead to changes in their cognitive processes, affecting their performance (i.e., reactive effects). Recent research has investigated this issue of reactivity and found rather mixed results (Bowles, 2008; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Rossomondo, 2007; Sachs & Polio, 2007; Sachs & Suh, 2007; Sanz, Lin, Lado, Bowden, & Stafford, 2009). However, as verbalizing thoughts during task performance likely makes nontrivial online demands on one’s cognitive capacity, it can be assumed that the occurrence of reactive effects on learner performance may depend, to some extent, on cognitive abilities reflected in working memory capacity (WMC). WMC is an important construct in explicating higher order cognitive performance such as language comprehension, reasoning, and general fluid intelligence and has been researched extensively and thoroughly in cognitive psychology (see Baddeley, 2007; Conway, Jarrold, Kane, Miyake, & Towse, 2007a; Jarrold & Towse, 2006; Miyake, 2001; Miyake & Shah, 1999, for a review of theories and models of WM and its theoretical developments). Reflecting a burgeoning interest in research on individual differences in terms of how they affect the scale and scope of L2 development, WMC has recently been spotlighted in the field of SLA and even considered, by some researchers, as a potentially critical component of language aptitude (e.g., Miyake & Friedman, 1998; Robinson, 2005a; Skehan, 2002). As such, much attention has been drawn to WMC and the effects of individual differences in WMC on L2 learning (e.g., Geva & Ryan, 1993; Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Havik, Roberts, van Hout, Schreuder, & Haverkort, 2009; Juffs, 2004, 2005; Kormos & S´af´ar, 2008; Mackey, Adams, Stafford, & Winke, in press; Mackey, Philp, Egi, Fujii, & Tatsumi, 2002; Miyake & Friedman, 1998; Robinson, 2002, 2005b; Sagarra, 2007, 2008; Tokowicz, Michael, & Kroll, 2004; Trofimovich, Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007; Walter, 2004; see also Williams, in press, for a review of research on WM and its relation to first language (L1) learning and L2 learning). The study reported in this article was primarily designed to investigate how individual differences in WMC mediate the potential occurrence of reactive effects, if any, on reading comprehension and rule learning for L2 learners of Spanish as a foreign language. In the subsequent sections, relevant research on the nature of WM and individual differences in WMC as well as on think-aloud protocols is reviewed, followed by the report of the present study.

713

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Think-Aloud Protocols Protocol analysis has emerged as one of the principal methods for investigating L2 learners’ thoughts and thought processes and has been employed and discussed in much SLA research (e.g., Alanen, 1995; Bowles, 2008; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Leow, 1997, 1998, 2000; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000; Mackey et al., 2007; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999; Rossomondo, 2007; Sachs & Polio, 2007; Sachs & Suh, 2007; Sanz et al., 2009; Swain & Lapkin, 1995, 2002). Especially, such concurrent verbal reports as think-aloud protocols, inter alia, have contributed to providing a rich source of insightful information on L2 learners’ cognitive processes. The act of thinking aloud involves verbalizing a sequence of thoughts or, as Ericsson and Simon (1993) put it, “cognitive processes described as successive states of heeded information” (p. 16) that occur simultaneously during task completion; that is, verbal reports of this kind are collected when participants are instructed to verbalize their thoughts while performing their task(s). Ericsson and Simon in their discussion on protocol analysis categorized concurrent verbalization into three types based on the complexity of intermediate processes prior to articulation: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 verbalizations. In Level 1 verbalization, no verbal recoding is required, as sequences of thoughts are readily reportable (e.g., talk-alouds as in verbalizing a mental calculation of 23 × 56). For Level 2 verbalization (also called “nonmetalinguistic thinkaloud”), recoding is necessary for thoughts to be reported, as they are not in verbal code, but no other mediating processes are required. Thus, in Level 2 verbalization, participants vocalize their thoughts during task performance with no special effort to explain or justify their thoughts. Ericsson and Simon noted that a simple recoding does not change the sequence of heeded information.

In Level 3 verbalization, participants are instructed to explain or justify their thoughts and thought processes during task completion in addition to verbalizing their ongoing thinking (see Bowles & Leow, 2005, for their operationalization of this type of verbalization). For this reason, it is also known as a metalinguistic think-aloud. This type of verbalization, according to Ericsson and Simon, likely changes the structure of cognitive processes, resulting in reactive effects on task performance and therefore is inappropriate for investigations into ongoing (uninterrupted) cognitive processes. Ericsson and Simon suggested that the closest connection is achieved between the verbal protocol and the actual thought processes via Level 1 and Level 2 verbalizations.

Regarding the utility of Level 3 verbalization, however, they noted that some instructions that generate Level 3 verbalization may have important educational Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

714

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

implications for improving learning (see also Smagorinsky, 1998, 2001, for a discussion on the usefulness of Level 3 verbalizations from a sociocultural perspective).

Although think-alouds have been regarded and utilized as a useful methodological tool for gaining access to L2 learners’ cognitive processes, concerns have been discussed about possible structural changes made to cognitive processes during a think-aloud, influencing L2 learners’ task performance (e.g., Cohen, 2000; Jourdenais, 2001; Wigglesworth, 2005). As mentioned earlier, however, Ericsson and Simon (1993, 1998) posited that task performance is affected as a result of think-alouds only when participants are required to explain, justify, or carefully describe their thoughts and thought processes.

Because generating thoughts for strategic verbal reporting (e.g., explanations and justifications) inevitably involves additional cognitive processes, according to Ericsson and Simon (1993, 1998), metalinguistic think-alouds (Level 3 verbalization) change the structure of thoughts or the sequence of heeded information, engendering reactive effects on task performance. In contrast, it is likely that a sequence of thoughts verbalized within the purview of Level 1 and Level 2 verbalizations remains intact. In fact, Ericsson and Simon (1993) in their review of more than 30 experimental studies comparing performance with and without verbalization of thoughts found no reliable evidence that nonmetalinguistic think-alouds changed the sequences of thoughts and thought processes during task completion. Their review, however, provided evidence that if participants were required to explain their thoughts (Level 3 verbalizations or metalinguistic think-alouds), the structure of cognitive processes was changed. The “requirements for verbalized explanations biased participants to adopt more orderly and rigorous strategies to the problems that were easier to communicate in a coherent fashion, but in turn altered the sequence of thoughts.” (Ericsson & Simon, 1998, p. 183), resulting in reactive effects on participants’ task performance.

Recent SLA research has investigated this still-lingering concern about reactivity that think-alouds may cause (Bowles, 2008; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Rossomondo, 2007; Sachs & Polio, 2007; Sachs & Suh, 2007; Sanz et al., 2009). Leow and Morgan-Short (2004), the first L2 study on the issue of reactivity of concurrent verbalizations, examined the effects of think-alouds on learners’ comprehension, intake, and controlled written production. Each participant was instructed to read an article (either enhanced or unenhanced version) and then complete three assessment tasks: a comprehension task, a fill-in-the-blank task, and a multiple-choice recognition task.

The results showed no significant differences between the think-aloud groups 715

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

and the control groups in their performance on any of the three assessment tasks that they carried out.

Another study conducted by Bowles and Leow (2005) provided additional insights into the issue of reactivity. Two types of verbalizations were examined in terms of their impact on learner performance: metalinguistic verbalization and nonmetalinguistic verbalization. No reactivity was evidenced in any comparisons between the control and either of the two experimental groups— metalinguistic and nonmetalinguistic groups—although they found a significant difference between the two experimental groups in their comprehension.

Bowles (2008) took a step further by investigating the issue (metalinguistic vs. nonmetalinguistic vs. control) in relation to the type of feedback (implicit vs. explicit). Somewhat differently from Bowles and Leow’s study, a statistically significant difference was found between the control group and the metalinguistic group in the production of previously viewed exemplars containing the target structure gustar. However, no significant effect for the type of verbalization was evidenced in the production of novel exemplars. Furthermore, no interaction between the type of verbalization and the type of feedback was statistically significant. Given this inconclusive evidence, the issue of reactivity that involves metalinguistic think-alouds merits more research in the years to come. This issue, albeit intriguing, is beyond the scope of the present study.

A recent study by Rossomondo (2007) lent support to the previous finding

by Leow and Morgan-Short (2004) and Bowles and Leow (2005) of no negative reactive effect of think-alouds on learner performance. She utilized both silent reading and thinking aloud in order to examine the role of the text interaction format in her study designed to investigate the effects of the presence or absence of lexical temporal indicators (LTIs) on learner comprehension and processing of the Spanish future tense. No negative effect of the think-aloud condition was evidenced, providing additional evidence of no negative reactivity. It should be noted, however, that the act of thinking aloud was found to enhance learner performance on the form-recognition and form-production tasks in her study; that is, some evidence of positive reactivity was observed, as in Sanz et al.’s (2009) study (see their second experiment for evidence). Similarly, Sachs and Suh (2007) found no negative reactive effects of think-alouds in their synchronous computer-mediated communication study on the effectiveness of textually enhanced recasts in the development of English tense shifting (from the past to the past perfect).

However, Sachs and Polio (2007) found some evidence of negative reactivity. Their study was designed to investigate reactivity as well as the effects Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

716

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

of different types of written feedback on L2 writing development. Two types of written feedback operationalized in the study were error correction and reformulation. To study the issue of reactivity, they included one more experimental condition (reformulation + think-aloud) and compared two reformulation groups (reformulation-only vs. reformulation + think-aloud) in terms of accuracy in an L2 writing revision task. The results of the first experiment (within-subjects design) showed that learners produced significantly more accurate revisions in the reformulation-only condition than in the reformulation + think-aloud condition, which indicates that think-alouds may negatively affect the extent to which L2 learners may benefit from corrective feedback on their writing performance. In the second experiment (between-groups design), however, no significant difference was found between the reformulation-only and reformulation + think-aloud conditions, showing nonreactivity. Regardless of whether the conflicting results with respect to the occurrence of reactive effects may be due to the two different experimental designs employed, the findings suggest that there is still a possibility that think-alouds may have a negative impact on learner performance and that more research should be conducted to provide a clearer answer to the question of whether think-alouds are reactive.

Interestingly, none of the studies reviewed above manipulated such important variables as language aptitude, WMC, intelligence, motivation, and so forth, although individual differences in these factors are known to have an effect on L2 learning and learning processes. Particularly in relation to the present study, it is reasonably speculated that WMC may affect the extent to which the act of thinking aloud leads to reactive effects, if any, on learner performance because it is likely that cognitive competence mirrored in WMC determines individual learners’ susceptibility to reactivity as well as their ability to combat reactivity. In what follows, research on WM in the field of cognitive psychology is reviewed.

Working Memory Since the inception of the concept of WM (e.g., Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) that began to replace that of short-term memory (STM; generally defined as a system for the temporary storage of information), WM has been given a position of pivotal importance in the field of cognitive psychology (and other research areas that deal with human cognition), generating a barrage of theoretical explanations and numerous empirical studies with respect to the nature of WM and its relationship with higher order cognitive behaviors (see Baddeley, 2007; 717

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Conway et al., 2007a; Jarrold & Towse, 2006; Miyake, 2001; Miyake & Shah, 1999, for varied theories and models about WM and reviews of relevant theoretical developments). In general, WM is viewed as “the ability to maintain information in an active and readily accessible state, while concurrently and selectively processing new information” (Conway, Jarrold, Kane, Miyake, & Towse, 2007b, p. 3). Similarly, Jarrold and Towse (2006) defined it as “the ability to hold in mind information in the face of potentially interfering distraction in order to guide behavior” (p. 39); that is, the WM system comprises mechanisms dedicated to active maintenance of information and mechanisms for cognitive control that coordinate and integrate its storage and processing operations to guide task-relevant behaviors. Due to these mechanisms, WM is considered a broader concept than STM and thought to be involved in a wide range of higher order cognitive performance, serving a critical function in human cognition.

Hence, individual differences in WMC may well be reflected in differences in performance on varied complex cognitive tasks such as language comprehension, including reading and sentence processing (e.g., Daneman & Carpenter, 1980, 1983; Just & Carpenter, 1992; King & Just, 1991; MacDonald, Just, & Carpenter, 1992; see Daneman & Merikle, 1996, for a meta-analysis), and general intellectual abilities, including reasoning and general fluid intelligence1 (e.g., Conway, Cowan, Bunting, Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002; Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003; Engle, 2002; Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999; Kane et al., 2004; S¨uβ, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002; see also Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle, 2005 for a meta-analysis and Kane, Hambrick, & Conway’s [2005] response to Ackerman et al.’s findings).

Although there appears to be a consensus regarding the predictive power of WMC for higher order cognitive performance, the issues of the exact nature of WM and of individual variation in WMC are controversial and inconclusive among cognitive psychologists. According to the resource-sharing account (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980, 1983), WM capacity is a limited pool of cognitive resources and the amount of information that can be stored during processing depends on how efficiently such processing can take place, a tradeoff between the processing and storage demands. The task-switching account is an alternative proposal to the resource-sharing account about the nature of WM and variation in WMC (Towse & Hitch, 1995, 2007; Towse, Hitch, & Hutton, 1998). According to this account, WMC is limited because individuals undergo the rapid forgetting of to-be-remembered items during the time spent processing. Thus, performance on WM span tasks is to a large extent determined by the temporal dynamics of WM span, which points to the intrinsic involvement of processing efficiency and time in the maintenance or loss of Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

718

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

temporary information (see, however, Conway & Engle, 1996; Conway et al., 2002; Engle, Cantor, & Carullo, 1992; Friedman & Miyake, 2004, for evidence against these processing-based accounts).

The executive attention view, another line of theoretical explanation, illustrates that individual differences in WMC that lead to performance differences in complex cognitive tasks derive mainly from variation in domain-general executive attention processes and, to some extent, from variation in domainspecific storage and rehearsal processes (Engle, 2002; Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999; Engle, Tuholski et al., 1999; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane, Conway, Hambrick, & Engle, 2007). More recently, Kane et al. (2007) went so far as to suggest that “a third variable, representing a low-level executive attention capability, influences functioning on all of these selectiveattention, WM-span, and memory-retrieval tasks (and, presumably, on indices of Gf as well)” (p. 34), which is supported by empirical evidence found in previous research involving such memory-independent tasks as dichotic listening2 (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001), antisaccade3 (Kane et al., 2001), and Stroop4 tasks (Kane & Engle, 2003). However, Oberauer, S¨uβ, Wilhelm, and Wittmann (2003) in their facet model of the structure of WM (two facets: content domains and cognitive functions) found that the task-set-switching variables assumed to reflect executive functions (or supervision) did not substantially correlate with WMC factors, posing a serious challenge to the executive attention theory (see Oberauer, S¨uβ, Wilhelm, & Sander, 2007, for further discussion; also Colom, Shih, Flores-Mendoza, & Quiroga, 2006, for a similar challenge to the executive attention theory).

Similar to the executive attention view in emphasizing cognitive control, Hasher and her colleagues (Hasher, Lustig, & Zacks, 2007; Hasher & Zacks, 1988; Hasher, Zacks, & May, 1999) contended that inhibitory-based executive control is an essential factor that determines the scale and scope of the predictive power of WM tasks and that inhibitory control functions in the service of goals to (1) prevent irrelevant information from gaining access to the focus of attention, (2) delete no-longer relevant items from consideration, and (3) restrain prepotent responses so that other, initially weaker response candidates can be evaluated and influence behavior as appropriate for current goals. (Hasher et al., 2007, pp. 230–231) The difference between the inhibitory control view and the executive attention view is that the former interprets inhibitory control as determining WMC,

719

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

whereas the latter, according to its most recent rendition (e.g., Kane et al., 2007), assumes simple executive attention processes to determine inhibitory control as well as WMC, which involves active maintenance of goal-relevant information in the face of interference and distraction.

From a similar perspective of cognitive control, Braver, Gray, and Burgess (2007) suggested that proactive control mechanisms serve to prevent interference, whereas reactive control processes can detect and suppress interference when it occurs. Unsworth and Engle (2007) also claimed that low-WMC individuals are more vulnerable to proactive interference (PI) than high-WMC individuals because low-WMC individuals are poor at delimiting their search sets to task-relevant representations, rendering a retrieval process quite challenging (see also Unsworth, 2007, in this line of argument).

Other researchers focused on storage constraints as well as processing and executive control, claiming that multiple sources are responsible for WM variation. For example, Jarrold and Bayliss (2007) considered storage constraints as another important culprit of individual and developmental variation in WM performance, arguing that variation in WM capacity stems from three independent sources: storage capacity, processing efficiency, and executive ability to coordinate or combine the two demands. Based on their research on expert performance, Ericsson and his colleagues (Ericsson & Delaney, 1999; Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995) proposed the existence of longterm WM. Under this view, through the acquisition of domain-specific skills, individuals are able to encode relevant information into long-term memory in a readily accessible form so that the encoded information can be rapidly retrieved from long-term memory whenever needed during domain-specific activities. Another interesting proposal is that there may be a specialized system in the central executive dedicated predominantly to online syntactic processing and other related aspects of language processing: a separate WM system that is not represented by general verbal WM as measured by standard WM tests (Caplan, Waters, & DeDe, 2007). Various other theoretical explanations and models have been proposed in strenuous efforts to understand the nature of WM and sources of individual variation in WMC (see Conway et al., 2007a; Miyake & Shah, 1999, for diverse theoretical models). Infeasible as it may be to reach a consensus on the nature of WM and of individual variation in WMC, more research will definitely contribute to theoretical developments by providing evidence for new theoretical accounts as well as confirming or disconfirming contemporary theories and models.

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

720

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Working Memory, Think-Alouds, and the Present Study As indicated above, WMC has emerged as a topic of crucial importance, engendering numerous studies on its relation to varied cognitive behaviors. What has been shown and demonstrated in most of these studies is that WMC is strongly correlated with higher order cognitive functioning (e.g., reading comprehension, reasoning, general fluid intelligence, etc.) as well as simple attentioncontrol tasks (e.g., Stroop, dichotic listening, antisaccade tasks). Considering the predictive role of WMC in complex cognitive performance, it can be reasonably inferred that WMC may play a nontrivial role in the course of thinking aloud during task completion. A WM span measure and a task that involves thinking aloud are similar in that they both impose cognitive demands on participants in relation to attentional control. WM span measures require participants to engage in actively maintaining information in a readily accessible state while processing new incoming information, which necessitates some level of cognitive control of attention. Likewise, during a task that involves the act of thinking aloud, cognitive control may be critical in meeting the requirement to verbalize their thoughts while processing information derived from a given task (e.g., reading). Because of this somewhat similar dual-component nature in both WM span measures and tasks involving think-alouds, it may not be too far-fetched an assumption that individual variation in WMC likely reflects performance on a task that requires concurrent verbalization in addition to the main component of the task; that is, individuals with high WMC may be better able to process and keep information active and readily accessible while verbalizing their thoughts—for instance, by utilizing their fine-grained executive attention processes (e.g., Kane et al., 2007) or a higher level of inhibitory control (e.g., Hasher et al., 2007)—compared to those with low WMC. In other words, for low-span individuals, verbalizing their thoughts may interfere with their cognitive processes required to perform a given task, whereas high-span individuals may not be affected by interference or distraction caused by the verbalization requirement because of their superior use of attention control mechanisms. This indicates that WMC may have an important bearing on the issue of reactivity.

The present study was designed to investigate the issue of reactivity that may arise from the presence of the verbalization requirement in carrying out tasks as well as the effects of WMC on reading comprehension and the development of a Spanish structure—Spanish immediate future (equivalent to “be going to” in English). More importantly, the study examined whether and how WMC measured via L1 listening span and operation span tasks was related to the

721

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

possible occurrence of reactivity. The research questions addressed in this study are as follows: RQ1: Is WMC related to learner performance on comprehension?

RQ2: Does thinking aloud while completing a task lead to reactive effects on learner comprehension?

RQ3: Is WMC related to the development of Spanish immediate future?

RQ4: Does thinking aloud while completing a task lead to reactive effects on the development of Spanish immediate future?

RQ5: How is WMC related to learner performance under the think-aloud and nonthink-aloud conditions?

Method Participants The original pool included a total of 114 first-semester English-speaking learners of Spanish as a foreign language attending an American university at the time of the study. Of those in the original pool, only 42 learners (male = 19, female = 23) participated in the entire experiment. Excluded from the original pool were those whose performance on the background or processing portions of two WM span tasks (listening span and operation span tasks) was below 80% in accuracy on the average,5 those whose knowledge about the target structure was evidenced in the pretest, and those who did not finish all the tasks. Their ages ranged from 18 to 22 (M = 20.64, SD = 1.71). Of the 42 learners in the final pool, 19 learners (45.2%) had been to Spanish-speaking countries: Spain (n = 1), other Spanish-speaking countries (n = 17), and both (n = 1), mainly for traveling purpose (n = 18, 94.7%), with the exception of one case of study abroad. Their length of stay ranged from 1 to 70 days (M = 17.42, SD = 18.31). Some had also studied other foreign languages than Spanish (e.g., French, Italian, German, Hebrew, Russian, etc.). They were assigned to one of three WMC groups (high, mid, low) based on their performance on the WM span tasks (converted into z-scores): high for those whose z-scores were higher than .5, mid for those whose z-scores were between −.5 and .5, and low for those whose z-scores were lower than −.5, following Mackey et al.

(2002). Then learners in each WMC group were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: one think-aloud (TA) and one non-think-aloud (NTA) (see Table 1).

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

722

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Table 1 Experimental grouping of participants Groups Think-aloud (n = 19) Non-think-aloud (n = 23)

WM High

WM Mid

WM Low

n=7 n=8

n=7 n=8

n=5 n=7

Linguistic Target The immediate future in Spanish (with the first-person plural: “we”) with reflexive and nonreflexive verbs was selected as the target linguistic form, as in Vamos a ver la Torre Eiffel “We are going to see the Eiffel Tower” and Vamos a levantarnos a las 6 “We are going to get up at 6.” Similar to the rationale for the selection of the target structure used in Leow and MorganShort’s (2004) study, contextual guessing and learning of the Spanish immediate future was highly likely to occur through the given context provided in the treatment text. Participants had not received any formal in-class instruction; formal exposure to it was expected to take place later in the semester.

Tasks and Materials Listening Span Task 6 The present study adopted the listening span task developed by Mackey et al. (in press) with minor procedural changes. It consisted of 36 English sentences (L1 sentences), prerecorded by a female native speaker (NS) of English at a normal speed and presented aurally through lab speakers. The recall items (the sentence-final words) were common, noncompound concrete nouns and were one to three syllables in length. No sentence-final words in a set were semantically relevant to each other. The sentences were distributed in sets of three, four, or five sentences. A total of nine sets of sentences were included: three sets for each set size (e.g., three, four, and five). Set sizes were randomized so that learners were prevented from guessing the number of sentences (the number of recall items, for that matter). More importantly, the randomization of sets was designed to reduce the amount of PI assumed to build up in the traditional ascending order of item presentation (see Lustig, May, & Hasher, 2001; May, Hasher, & Kane, 1999, for research on this ordering issue; ascending vs. descending). PI is defined as “the generally disruptive effect of prior learning on the ability to retrieve more recently learned information” (Lustig & Hasher, 2002, p. 90). In the traditional ascending order of presentation, large set sizes crucial for high recall scores appear later, and prior trials likely cause PI when large sets of items need to be recalled, negatively affecting overall performance on WM span tasks. This issue of PI was taken into consideration.

723

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

A two-sided answer sheet for the listening task was developed: one side for the grammaticality part and the other side for the recall part of the task.

Prior to the actual task, pre-recorded instructions were provided which included a practice set (three sentences). During the actual task, learners listened to sentences in sets of three, four, or five. They were instructed to decide the grammaticality of each sentence and put a checkmark on the answer sheet within 2 s after they heard it; Mackey et al. (in press) also included judging semantic appropriateness as an additional part of the background task for their participants to carry out, but the pilot conducted prior to the present study showed that it might be too taxing. In addition, they were asked to recall the last words of the sentences included in each set and write them down on the other side of the answer sheet following a sound signal (ting) that indicated the end of each set; they were given 11 s for set size 3, 14 s for set size 4, and 17 s for set size 5, as determined in the pilot.

Operation Span Task An operation span task, originally developed by Turner and Engle (1989), is another type of complex span measure that has been widely utilized and accepted as tapping verbal WMC (e.g., Bunting, Conway, & Heitz, 2004; Conway et al., 2003; Kane et al., 2004; Rosen & Engle, 1997, 1998; Tokowicz et al., 2004; Unsworth, 2007; Unsworth & Engle, 2007; also see Unsworth, Heitz, Schrock, & Engle, 2005, for a discussion of an automated version of the operation span task). Thus, a variant of Turner and Engle’s operation-word span task was developed for the present study, using Microsoft PowerPoint. A total of 42 mathematical operation-word pairs were generated and presented on as many slides [e.g., “(2 × 3) + 1 = 7 PARK”]. Each pair consisted of a mathematical operation and a one-syllable English word. The words were three to six letters in length and were the ones that were utilized in Engle and his colleagues’ operation span task (see http://psychology.gatech.edu/renglelab/tasks.htm). The pairs were randomly distributed in sets of two, three, four, or five (three sets of pairs for each set size) in order to reduce the buildup of PI, as in the case of the listening span task. One additional slide after each operation-word pair slide was inserted asking about whether the operation on the preceding slide was correct or not (e.g., “Correct/Incorrect?”). After each set of operation-word slides along with as many slides of “Correct/Incorrect?” a slide with three question marks (e.g., “???”) was also included as a recall cue. Three practice sets of size 2 were used before the actual task. Half of the operations were correct and the other half were incorrect. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division were all counterbalanced. A two-sided answer sheet was developed for Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

724

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

the task: one side for the mathematical operation part and the other side for the recall part of the task.

In the actual operation span task, learners read aloud each mathematical operation-word pair and decided whether each operation was correct. Then they put a checkmark on their answer sheet regarding its correctness. Five seconds were allowed for reading aloud the operation-word pair and deciding whether the operation was correct, and 2 s were allowed for putting a checkmark. At the end of each set of operation-word pairs, they were presented with three question marks (“???”), then they were supposed to recall the words shown in the preceding set and write them down on the other side of the answer sheet.

For this recall part of the test, they were given 8 s for set size 2, 11 s for set size 3, 14 s for set size 4, and 17 s for set size 5.

Reading Task A reading text (238 words) titled “Vacaciones en M´exico” (A vacation in Mexico) was developed and used in the reading task. Such enhancement techniques as italics, boldface, and underlining were not incorporated in order to avoid any potentially confounding results and interpretations. Twenty instances in which the target linguistic form was exemplified were contained in the text.

A glossary of 26 Spanish words used in the text was also provided below the text on the same page (see Appendix A) to prevent their lexical knowledge from affecting their comprehension.

Comprehension Test7 In the comprehension test, learners were instructed to provide short answers or choose relevant information based on the contents of the text. The test consisted of nine comprehension questions that were designed to elicit 15 pieces of information contained in the text (see Appendix B). All of the questions in the comprehension test were presented in the learners’ L1, English, except Spanish proper nouns (e.g., names of places in Mexico); learners were instructed to use English in their answers except when they needed to provide proper nouns in Spanish.

Written Production Test Two versions of fill-in-the-blank tests were developed with the same 20 items in each version but in different contexts (see Appendix C).8 One of them was used in the pretest, and the other was used in the posttest. Both the infinitive and English equivalent of each item were provided for learners to construct the Spanish immediate future (see Example 1). Learners were required to fill in 725

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

each blank with an appropriate form, using a verb presented at the beginning of each test item.

Example 1 “(Enjoy/Disfrutar)__________ del sol y la brisa” Expected answer: “Vamos a disfrutar del sol y la brisa” “(Spend/Pasar) _____________ un d´ıa en el zoo.”

Expected answer: “Vamos a pasar un d´ıa en el zoo.”

Design and Procedure The study employed a pretest-posttest design to investigate whether WMC relates to reading comprehension and L2 rule learning and whether/how WMC mediates the extent to which think-alouds lead to reactive effects on learner performance. The learners in the TA condition were instructed to think aloud during the entire treatment and posttest sessions. Those in the NTA condition completed the treatment and posttest sessions without thinking aloud.

Data were collected over two experimental sessions. The first session took place in a computer lab located in a university building. The two WM span tests and the pretest on the target structure (fill-in-the-blank written production) were administered during the first session. The listening span task preceded the operation span, followed by the pretest. It took approximately 15 min for learners to finish each WM span test and 10 min to complete the pretest. Three weeks later, the learners with all three levels of WMC in the TA condition were pulled out of their classrooms and met the researcher in a small laboratory.

Instructions regarding how to think aloud were provided for the learners in the TA condition, followed by a couple of warm-up tasks (e.g., “What is the result of 22 × 23?” “How many windows are there in your or your parents’ house?”) recommended by Ericsson and Simon (1993). The learners in the TA condition were instructed as follows: In this experiment I am interested in what you think about while you are completing the entire experiment. Thus, I am going to ask you to THINK ALOUD as you read a written text and answer questions in the follow-up tasks (comprehension and fill-in-the-blank tests); that is, you are supposed to THINK ALOUD from the time when you begin to read a written text until you finish the last task (fill-in-the-blank). Don’t plan what to say or try to explain to me what you are thinking/saying, but rather let your thoughts speak. Just act as if you were alone in this lab speaking to yourself. I would like you to talk CONSTANTLY, CLEARLY, and LOUDLY. Although this experiment is self-paced, meaning you can take Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

726

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

as much time as you want, please try to finish the entire experiment as fast as you can. You can think aloud either in Spanish or in English. Please let me know if you have any questions.

They were instructed to think aloud during the entire reading activity and follow-up tests (comprehension and written production tests). They were reminded to keep thinking aloud whenever necessary. Those in the NTA condition, however, stayed in their classrooms with their peers, who were not qualified for the experiment. Their instructors had been informed of, and strictly followed, the procedure regarding all of the tasks (reading, comprehension, and written production tests) for the NTA condition, supervising the entire session. All of the learners received a four-page experimental packet that contained the reading text (page 1), the comprehension test (page 2), the fill-in-the-blank written production test (page 3), and a debriefing questionnaire (page 4). They were instructed to carry out the tasks in the order of presentation and not to return to the previous page once they moved to the next one. It took the learners in the TA group approximately 50 min to finish the entire second data collection session and it took those in the NTA group 30 min to complete all the activities; for the TA group, approximately 10 min were spent on the think-aloud instructions and warm-up tasks. Table 2 shows the entire experimental procedure.

Scoring For the background or processing part of each WM span measure (e.g., grammaticality judgment for the listening span and mathematical operation for the operation span), one point was given to each correct answer, and no point for an incorrect answer. Percentage scores were computed based on their performance

Table 2 Experimental procedure Session 1

Session 2 (3 weeks later)

Consent form ↓ Personal information questionnaire ↓ Listening span task ↓ Operation span task ↓ Pretest (fill-in-the-blank)

Treatment (reading a text) ↓ Comprehension test ↓ Posttest (fill-in-the-blank) ↓ Debriefing questionnaire

727

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Table 3 Internal consistency reliability coefficients WM span tasks Listening span Comprehension .651

Operation span

Pretesta

Posttest

Grammar

Recall

Operation

Recall

1.00

.986

.696

.887

.853

.809

Note. The values are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Although an alpha between .70 and .90 is considered reasonably appropriate, it is not uncommon to have an alpha somewhat lower than .70 (e.g., .60–.69) in a scale that includes only a few items (e.g., comprehension test in the present study) (Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2005). a Only one participant scored 2 and all of the others got zeros on the pretest. Because the reliability coefficient is based on the performance of the participants in the final pool, it is a result of the selection process that allowed only those who did not have knowledge about the target structure to remain in the experiment; that is, the reliability coefficient for the pretest does not bear any meaning of importance.

on the processing parts of the tasks. As for the recall part of each WM span measure, the partial-credit load scoring procedure was adopted (see Conway et al., 2005, for a methodological review); that is, one point was awarded to each correctly recalled item regardless of its serial position within a set, and no point for an incorrectly recalled or not-recalled item. Then percentage scores were calculated for each WM span measure, as was the case with the processing parts of the WM span measures. For each learner, an average percentage score based on his or her percentage scores in the two WM span measures was used as reflecting his or her WMC. With regard to the comprehension and the fill-in-the-blank written production tests, one point was awarded to each correct answer for a total of 15 (comprehension test) and 20 (fill-in-the-blank written production); multiple points were allowed for Question 1 (4 points), Question 3 (3 points), and Question 5 (2 points) in the nine-item comprehension test. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was computed to estimate the internal consistency reliability of each measure (see Table 3). Overall, most measures were not problematic in terms of internal consistency; however, the alpha coefficient for the posttest seems quite high, indicating that some kind of repetition might have been involved in measuring learners’ improvement. The Pearson correlation between the two WM span measures (on the recall part) showed statistical significance (r = .521, p = .000); that is, the two WM span measures tapped more or less the same construct. The significance level was set at .05 for all statistical tests.

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

728

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Results In order to make sure that the three WMC groups differed from each other in their span scores, Brown-Forsythe and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc pairwise comparisons were computed due to the violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variances. Statistical significance was found in all tests, indicating that the grouping based on WM scores was appropriate: Brown-Forsythe f (2, 20.182) = 126.496 (p = .000) and all pairwise comparisons using Dunnett’s T3 were significant (p = .000 for all pairwise comparisons). Another statistical test conducted as a precaution was a t-test on WM scores between the TA and the NTA conditions. No significant difference was found in their WM span scores between the TA (M = .73, SD = .15) and the NTA (M = .74, SD = .14) conditions, t(40) = −0.14 (p = .89, d = .07). This indicates that both groups began on an equal footing in terms of WMC. First, all the data, including those from the mid-WMC groups, were analyzed to compare the performance of the TA with that of the NTA on both tests (comprehension and fill-in-the-blank written production tests). When statistical significance was found in a regression analysis of WMC on learner performance (e.g., comprehension, fill-in-the-blank tests, or both), an ANCOVA with WMC as a covariate was conducted. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was checked via Levene’s tests and normality via skewness and kurtosis statistics.

With regard to the learners’ performance on the comprehension test, a regression analysis was first carried out in order to examine whether WMC predicted the results of the comprehension test. It was shown that almost no variance in the learners’ performance on reading comprehension was accounted for by WMC, F(1, 40) = .56, p = .46, R = .12, R2 = .01, adjusted R2 = −.01.

However, as shown in Table 4 (see also Figure 1), the difference between the two experimental conditions in their performance on the comprehension test showed a revealing trend toward statistical significance with a medium effect size (TA vs. NTA), t(40) = −1.99, p = .054, d = .62, indicating a sign of reactivity on learner comprehension.

Table 4 Results of comprehension test TA

NTA

M

SD

M

SD

df

t

p

d

8.58

2.22

10.22

2.97

40

−1.99

.054

.62

Note. TA means the think-aloud condition and NTA means the non-think-aloud condition.

729

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Figure 1 Learner performance on reading comprehension.

Another regression analysis was conducted on the learners’ performance on the written production task (fill-in-the-blank) with all three WMC groups included. Evidence was found that WMC, to some extent, predicted the learners’ posttest performance on the written production task, F(1, 40) = 4.50, p = .04, R = .32, R2 = .10, adjusted R2 = .08, but not their pretest performance, F(1, 40) = 2.23, p = .14, R = .23, R2 = .05, adjusted R2 = .03. Due to the significant role of WMC in the learner performance on the posttest despite the rather low R2 and adjusted R2 values (not much variance is accounted for by WMC), a decision was made to conduct a repeated-measures ANCOVA with WMC as a covariate. To prevent the covariate (WMC scores) from altering the main within-subjects effects of the repeated measure, the Delaney-Maxwell method (Delaney & Maxwell, 1981) was utilized in which each WM score was adjusted based on the difference between the mean score and each individual score.

There was no significant difference between the TA and NTA groups in their pretest performance, t(40) = −0.91, p = .37. As shown in Table 5 and Figure 2, their performance on the posttest was drastically improved with the help of the reading activity. This is also evidenced in the repeated-measures ANCOVA with WMC as a covariate (see Table 6). The results of the ANCOVA Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

730

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Table 5 Descriptive statistics for results of written production TA (n = 19)

Pretest Posttest

NTA (n = 23)

Total (n = 42)

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

0.00 6.05

0.00 8.13

0.09 5.52

0.42 7.93

0.05 5.76

0.31 7.92

indicate a significant main effect of Time (pre-to-post), F(1, 39) = 23.65, p = .00, η p 2 = .38, and of WMC (as a covariate) on learner performance, F(1, 39) = 4.60, p = .04, η p 2 = .11, but not of TANTA (think-aloud vs. nonthink-aloud), F(1, 39) = .05, p = .82, η p 2 = .00. A significant Time × WMC interaction effect was also found, F(1, 39) = 4.28, p = .045, η p 2 = .10, which confirms the finding of the regression analysis that WMC predicted the learners’ posttest performance (R = .32, p = .04) but not their performance on the pretest (R = .23, p = .14).

Data only from the extreme groups (high- and low-WMC groups) were analyzed to further examine, if any, reactive effects of think-alouds on learner performance (see Table 7). Because there were only a small number of subjects in each of the four groups and the normality assumption was not met, a MannWhitney U (the nonparametric version of independent-samples t-test) was

Figure 2 Pre-to-post development on Spanish immediate future in written production.

731

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Table 6 Repeated-measures ANCOVA for written production scores with WMC as a covariate Source Between-subjects TANTA WMC Error Within-subjects Time Time × WMC Time × TANTA Error

df

MS

F

ηp2

p

1 1 39

1.63 138.90 30.19

0.05 4.60∗

.00 .11

.82 .04

1 1 1 39

687.63 124.36 2.75 29.08

23.65∗ 4.28∗ 0.10

.38 .10 .00

.00 .045 .76

Note. Time = pre-to-post changes, TANTA = think-aloud vs. non-think-aloud. ∗ p < .05.

calculated for each pairwise comparison on the reading comprehension test and the written production posttest; the pretest scores were not submitted to this portion of analysis due to the fact that all but one subject who had 2 points scored zeros on the written production pretest. No statistical significance was evidenced in any pairwise comparison.

However, different patterns of pre-to-post developments in learner performance on the written production were observed. The pattern shown in Figure 3 indicates that high-WMC learners were somewhat negatively affected by the verbalization requirement, but low-WMC learners were not particularly

Table 7 Descriptive statistics on comprehension and written production (WMC high vs. low) WMC High

Comprehension Written Production Pretest Written Production Posttest

WMC Low

Total

TA (n = 7)

NTA (n = 8)

TA (n = 5)

NTA (n = 7)

TA (n = 12)

NTA (n = 15)

9.43 (2.70) 0.00 (0.00) 6.57 (8.52)

10.25 (3.73) 0.25 (0.71) 9.13 (10.02)

8.00 (2.55) 0.00 (0.00) 4.00 (8.94)

9.86 (3.08) 0.00 (0.00) 1.86 (4.49)

8.83 (2.62) 0.00 (0.00) 5.50 (8.39)

10.07 (3.33) 0.13 (0.52) 5.73 (8.54)

Note. The values represent means and standard deviations (SDs are in parentheses).

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

732

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Figure 3 Pre-to-post developments by TA and NTA groups within each WMC level.

affected by the requirement; under the low-WMC-TA condition (n = 5), only one person scored 20 and the other four learners got zeros, which indicates that the performance difference between the TA and NTA groups can be ignored.

Additionally, as shown in Figure 4, the difference between high-WMC and low-WMC learners in their performance on the written production was larger under the NTA condition than under the TA condition.

Figure 4 Pre-to-post developments by WMC groups under TA and NTA conditions.

733

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712â&#x20AC;&#x201C;752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

In sum, the results revealed that think-alouds had negatively affected the learners’ reading comprehension, showing a clear trend toward a statistically significant difference between the TA and NTA groups in favor of the NTA condition (p = .054, d = .62). WMC failed to predict learner performance on the reading comprehension test at the preset alpha level (α = .05). As for the written production test, a regression analysis showed that WMC had played a significant role in learner performance. A repeated-measures ANCOVA found a significant main effect of Time (pre-to-post development), but not of Treatment (TA vs. NTA), indicating no direct sign of reactivity. The Time × Treatment interaction was not statistically significant either. The extreme-groups comparisons (comparisons that involved only high- and low-WMC learners, excluding data from mid-WMC learners) fell short of statistical significance, implying no direct evidence of reactivity or no significant role of WMC in this respect.

Nonetheless, different patterns of their performance on the written production posttest point to a potential link between WMC and reactivity of think-alouds, which is discussed in the next section along with some other issues in relation to the results.

Discussion The study reported here was intended to examine the effects of WMC and think-alouds on learner performance on reading comprehension and the development of Spanish immediate future and, more importantly, the interaction between the two variables: WMC and think-alouds. The first research question on whether WMC is related to learner performance on comprehension was answered negatively. The study found no direct evidence for the role of WMC in reading comprehension. This result seems to contradict previous research findings that suggest the predictive power of WMC for reading/language comprehension (e.g., Daneman & Merikle, 1996; Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Walter, 2004). This discrepancy, however, might be explained considering that the second research question on whether think-alouds lead to reactive effects on comprehension was answered affirmatively. Given the fact that the verbalization requirement negatively affected learner comprehension (a clear trend toward statistical significance, p = .054), the seemingly nonsignificant effect of WMC on reading comprehension is, albeit indirect, additional evidence of negative reactivity of think-alouds; that is, it may have been that the reactive effects of think-alouds evidenced in the present experiment diminished the predictive power of WMC for reading comprehension, leading to the nonsignificant correlation between WMC and comprehension. For learners in the TA group, in other Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

734

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

words, WM resources needed to enable them to think aloud while reading the text exceeded their capacity limits above and beyond what they normally need or consume when engaging in silent reading, which confounded the explanatory potential of WMC for learner performance on reading comprehension.

With regard to the presence of a statistical trend toward negative reactivity in terms of learner comprehension observed in the present study, somewhat differently from previous nonsignificant findings (e.g., Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Rossomondo, 2007), one plausible explanation is that different target structures may inevitably provide different contexts, which may affect the level of difficulty of a given text and complexity of sentences included in the text.

More research is needed to confirm or disconfirm the present finding.

Regarding the third research question on whether WMC is related to learner performance on the development of Spanish immediate future, the study provided an affirmative answer. The regression analysis showed a statistically significant result that indicated that WMC, indeed, predicted learner performance on the posttest (written production). In the present experiment, the primary task during the reading activity was to comprehend the text contents and the secondary task expected to engender rule learning was to recognize a common grammatical pattern of the target items included in the text. Despite comprehension being the primary task, the secondary task (rule learning), however, was still in competition for cognitive resources. This is when the domain-general executive attention or central executive in WM surfaced to function as an important cognitive control mechanism. As shown in previous research (e.g., Bunting et al., 2004; Conway & Engle, 1994; Kane & Engle, 2000; Rosen & Engle, 1997, 1998), WM span differences arise under attention-demanding conditions that accompany high interference and competition; simply put, WMC differences most likely emerge when a given task is cognitively demanding in relation to attention control. Rule learning while reading for comprehension in the present experiment may have entailed the use of executive control of attention due to its nature of being the secondary task, making the role of WMC variation rather salient in L2 learning.

The fourth research question on whether think-alouds lead to reactive effects on the development of Spanish immediate future was answered negatively, echoing previous findings of no negative reactivity in rule learning (e.g., Bowles & Leow, 2005; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Sachs & Suh, 2007). The result is interesting, however, because negative reactive effects were found to be almost significant in their performance on the comprehension task (p = .054) but not on the production task. This selectivity may be attributable to the fact that reading for meaning (primary) was prioritized over rule learning through 735

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712â&#x20AC;&#x201C;752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

exemplars (secondary) during the reading activity; namely, they focused much more on meaning than on a grammatical pattern exemplified in the text. As such, only a paucity of attention was oriented toward the secondary task (rule learning), as opposed to the primary task (reading comprehension) to which most attention was paid. Accordingly, it is speculated that not much attention was left to be affected by the TA condition; that is, due to this insufficiency or lack of attentional resources available for the secondary task in the first place, the cognitive interruption by the TA condition failed to reach the level at which to make any significant difference in learner performance on the written production task (rule learning) between the two treatment groups (TA vs.

NTA). On the other hand, the TA condition affected reading comprehension by mediating the provision of, and interrupting the flow of, attentional resources.

Because both thinking aloud and reading comprehension involved intentional behaviors—unlike rule learning, which is somewhat incidental in the present experiment because of its being nonprimary—the TA condition had a conflicting interest with reading comprehension in terms of attentional resources, jeopardizing the overall attention-control mechanism. This was corroborated in this experiment (i.e., reactivity on comprehension and no significant result as to the role of WMC in comprehension).

Concerning the fifth research question on how WMC relates to learner performance under the TA and NTA conditions, several pairwise extreme-groups comparisons (high vs. low) were made in order to examine the precise relationship between the two variables. No statistical significance was found in any pairwise comparison, using a Mann-Whitney U-test. However, although highWMC learners performed better than did low-WMC learners in most cases, high-WMC learners were found to be more vulnerable to the verbalization requirement, compared to low-WMC learners, especially in their performance on the written production task (see Figures 3 and 4). Among high-WMC learners, the NTA group outperformed the TA group on the written production posttest, whereas with low-WMC learners, the two treatment groups did not particularly differ from each other. In addition, the performance difference between the high- and low-WMC groups was larger under the NTA condition than under the TA condition, providing indirect evidence of reactivity for high-WMC learners. At first, these results seem rather odd because, supposedly, high-WMC individuals should be able to overcome an extra cognitive load—for instance, imposed by a think-aloud by virtue of their high WMC. Although counterintuitive, the results may reflect a function of high-level cognitive control that high-WMC individuals exert when engaging in attention-demanding tasks. To elaborate, the high-WMC learners’ fine-grained controlled processes may have Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

736

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

enabled them to concentrate, with great intensity, on retrieving goal-relevant information (e.g., contents of the text) during the comprehension test, simultaneously suppressing goal-irrelevant information (e.g., grammatical information on the target structure and related target items) incorporated in the text used in the reading activity that preceded the comprehension test. Stated differently, their access to grammatical information might have been severely impaired or blocked due to their high-level executive control that operated during the comprehension test. This impaired access to grammatical information may have affected the high-WMC learners’ performance on the written production test, during which they attempted to recall grammatical information on the target structure and the specific target items that they had encountered during the reading activity. The cognitive advantage resulting from their ability to use controlled processes may have been reduced substantially, escalating their susceptibility to interference. It might have dissipated even more when they were required to verbalize their thoughts concurrently, leading to the performance difference between the two high-WMC groups (TA vs. NTA) in favor of the NTA group. In contrast, as far as low-WMC learners are concerned, because of their coarse-grained executive control mechanism, verbalizing their thoughts might not particularly have increased their already-high interference vulnerability, making no significant performance difference between the two low-WMC groups (TA vs. NTA).

Supportive evidence for this line of explanation on the impact of WMC variation on task performance comes from Rosen and Engle’s (1998) study (Experiment 2). Rosen and Engle manipulated paired-associates list-learning tasks for two treatment conditions (interference vs. noninterference) for each span group (high vs. low): interference (AB-AC-AB) and noninterference (EFCD-AB). They found the high-span participants in the interference condition were slower than their counterparts in the noninterference condition on Trial 1 of List 3 and that they were also significantly slower when relearning the first-list response items (e.g., AB pairs on List 3) than when learning the same response items for the first time (AB pairs on List 1), whereas no such significant difference was found for the low-span participants. The results showed that the high-span participants in the interference condition had suppressed the first-list (e.g., AB) response items when learning the second list (e.g., AC), but the low-span participants had not.

Rosen and Engle’s (1998) findings lend strong support to the current interpretation of the results found in the present study. The high-span individuals’ superior use of executive control made it possible for them to suppress information on the grammatical structure while carrying out the comprehension test.

737

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

This suppression, however, may have affected their performance on the written production test for which it was critical to retrieve information on the target structure that they had been exposed to during the reading activity but suppressed during the comprehension test. As already mentioned, verbalizing their thoughts during the written production test likely exacerbated their performance even further by engendering interference or distraction, resulting in differences between the TA and NTA groups among the high-WMC learners. Rosen and Engle (1997) found that their high-span participants who performed both a category task (retrieving animal names) and a concurrent digit-tracking task retrieved significantly fewer animal names than did the high-span control that performed the category task only but that no such effect was evidenced in their low-span participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance (Experiment 2). Additionally, a preexperimental task (memorizing and recalling a list of 12 animal names) was found to have influenced high-span but not low-span participants (Experiment 3).

Kane and Engle (2000) observed similar results that showed increased PI effects for the high-span participants under dual-task conditions but not for the low-span participants. Engle and his colleagues in their recent proposal (e.g., Kane et al., 2007) suggested that one fundamental strength of high-WMC individuals is their superior use of executive control, vis-`a-vis low-WMC individuals, in simple attention-control tasks involving no memory components such as dichotic listening (Conway et al., 2001), Stroop tasks (Kane & Engle, 2003), and antisaccade tasks (Kane et al., 2001), all of which showed high-span participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; advantages over low-span participants in maintaining task goals and controlling attention accordingly. This, at the same time, indicates why/how the high-span learners, but not the low-span learners, may have been affected by the verbalization requirement in the present study. Nevertheless, the validity of this line of interpretation has yet to be examined in future empirical studies on WMC and reactivity with larger samples.

Limitations and Future Research As is often the case with most empirical research, the present study is subject to limitations. The sizes of the samples used for the extreme-groups comparisons (high vs. low) were too small to make any crucial claims about potential interactions illustrated earlier. Also, only one target structure in one foreign language was chosen for this investigation. Utilizing and manipulating other structures in Spanish or structures in other foreign/second languages may differentially affect the degree to which the verbalization requirement has an impact on learner performance and the interaction between WMC and reactivity. In addition, Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712â&#x20AC;&#x201C;752

738

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

the types of dependent variable measures employed in five of the eight most recent studies on reactivity, including the present one, are almost identical— that is, comprehension and/or fill-in-the-blank/controlled written production tests (Bowles, 2008; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Rossomondo, 2007). Other dependent variable measures need to be used to provide more reliability for the present findings as well as the findings evidenced in previous research.

Another important issue is whether L2 WM span measures should also be employed. Due to concerns about proficiency influencing performance on WM span tasks, only L1 WM span measures were utilized in the present study. Learners were taking a first-semester Spanish course at the time of the experiment. As far as advanced learners are concerned, previous research has shown high correlations between L1 and L2 WM span measures (e.g., Miyake & Friedman, 1998; Osaka & Osaka, 1992; Osaka, Osaka, & Groner, 1993; van den Noort, Bosch, & Hugdahl, 2006); Mackey et al. (2002) also found a high correlation between L1 and L2 WM span measures with lowintermediate ESL learners. However, carrying out L2 WM span measures is far more challenging for beginning-level learners than for advanced learners, as evidenced in van den Noort et al.’s (2006) study that showed that foreign language proficiency interacted with WMC despite high correlations.

Nevertheless, utilizing L2 WM span measures that match L2 learners’ proficiency may provide new insights into the relationship between WMC and reactivity.

Finally, STM capacity measured via such simple span tasks as word span and digit span tasks may also be considered as an important variable to include in future research because STM and WMC may differentially influence cognitive processes during a think-aloud. More rigorous research that takes into consideration the methodological issues mentioned so far may assure a more definitive picture of the relationship between WMC and think-alouds in terms of reactivity as well as the extent to which WMC relates to L2 learning as a whole.

Conclusion Notwithstanding the limitations mentioned above, the present study found several important pieces of evidence that WMC is related to reactivity. WMC appears to have mediated reactive effects of think-alouds on learner performance, interacting with the verbalization load. The study showed that the verbalization requirement had led to more or less reactive effects on learner comprehension, 739

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

confounding and attenuating the generally accepted predictive power of WMC for reading comprehension. Also found was a possible indication that the concurrent verbalization requirement may have affected the high-WMC learners only, as reflected in their performance on the written production test (test on a grammatical target) that favored the NTA group. The high-WMC learners’ superior ability to suppress goal-irrelevant information (grammatical information about the target incorporated in the text) while focusing on the comprehension test may have affected their performance on the written production test by rendering it quite challenging to retrieve grammatical information that had been suppressed or blocked during the comprehension test. In addition, the verbalization requirement may have increased the level of interference or distraction, leading to the performance difference between the TA and NTA groups among the high-WMC learners. This does not seem to be the case with the low-WMC learners because of their already low-level controlled processes, resulting in no difference between the TA and NTA conditions in their performance on the written production task. More importantly, the results suggest that individual differences in WMC should be taken into full consideration in future research that involves think-aloud protocols.

Revised version accepted 26 June 2009

Notes 1 General fluid intelligence (gF) refers to “the ability to solve novel problems and adapt to new situations and is thought to be nonverbal and relatively culture free” (Engle, Tuholski, et al., 1999, p. 313), which is independent of general knowledge.

Two standardized tests most frequently used to measure gF are Cattell’s culture fair test and Raven’s standard progressive matrices.

2 The dichotic listening task/procedure is to repeat aloud the message (or words) presented to one ear while ignoring information presented to the other ear. In Conway et al.’s (2001) study, only 20% of high-span subjects reported hearing their name inserted into the goal-irrelevant message compared to 65% of low-span subjects who reported hearing their name via the irrelevant message channel.

3 In both prosaccade and antisaccade tasks, participants fixate in the middle of a visual display but must respond to each target stimulus (preceded by an attention-attracting cue) presented randomly to the left or right side of the display.

Whereas the attention-attracting cue and the target stimulus appear on the same side of the display in the prosaccade task, the cue always appears on the opposite side of the display from the target in the antisaccade task (e.g., a cue on the left side of fixation followed by a target stimulus on the right side). Kane et al. (2001) found Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

740

Goo

4

5

6

7

8

Working Memory and Reactivity

that high-span subjects were faster and more accurate than low-span subjects in the antisaccade task.

In the Stroop task, participants are required to name each color word presented on the screen based on the color of the ink in which the word is printed; for instance, if RED is presented in blue color, they are supposed to say “Blue” not “Red.” Kane and Engle (2003) showed that low-span subjects were more susceptible to Stroop interference effects than high-span subjects, committing more color-naming errors than did their high-span counterparts, especially in the 75% or 80% congruent conditions.

Because the WM span measures were designed to tap learners’ ability to actively maintain information while processing new information simultaneously, the cutoff was intended to ensure that only those who concentrated on processing as well as storage at the same time were included in the experiment. The cutoff was based on a research convention in cognitive psychology, according to which 80% or 85% in accuracy is generally accepted and used as a cutoff.

A listening span task was developed as an aural version of reading span task (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) and has been treated as such (Conway et al., 2005). It is just a different type of test measuring the same construct (viz., verbal WMC).

Admittedly, as one reviewer pointed out, the reading comprehension test employed in the present study measured how well they retrieved the selected factual contents of the text. Therefore, the relevant findings should not be interpreted as reflecting other components of reading comprehension (e.g., ability to infer meaning from contextual clues).

Efforts were made to maintain the comparability, in terms of difficulty, of the two versions of the written production test by utilizing sentences in similar structural configurations and similar kinds of high-frequency words in both versions. As in Leow and Morgan-Short’s (2004) study, a 3-week interval between the pretest and the posttest, during which no classroom teaching of the target form occurred, was designed to prevent or maximally minimize any practice effect on the written production posttest. As one of the reviewers noted, this type of constrained written production test is by no means a complete measure of development.

References Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 30–60.

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

741

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol. VIII, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

Bowles, M. A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at a L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 359–387.

Bowles, M. A., & Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–440.

Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bunting, M. F., Conway, A. R. A., & Heitz, R. P. (2004). Individual differences in the fan effect and working memory capacity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 604–622.

Caplan, D., Waters, G., & DeDe, G. (2007). Specialized verbal working memory for language comprehension. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 272–302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, A. (2000). Exploring strategies in test taking: Fine-tuning verbal reports from respondents. In G. Ekbatani & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL (pp. 127–150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ´ (2006). The real Colom, R., Shih, P. C., Flores-Mendoza, C., & Quiroga, M. A. relationship between short-term memory and working memory. Memory, 14, 804–813.

Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 331–335.

Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. B. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30, 163–183.

Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (1994). Working memory and retrieval: A resource-dependent inhibition model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 354–373.

Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (1996). Individual differences in working memory capacity: More evidence for a general capacity theory. Memory, 4, 577–590.

Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (Eds.). (2007a).

Variation in working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (2007b).

Variation in working memory: An introduction. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 3–17).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

742

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

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 and Review, 12, 769–786.

Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 547–552.

Delaney, H. D., & Maxwell, S. E. (1981). On using analysis of covariance in repeated measures designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 105–123.

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 561–584.

Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–433.

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.

Engle, R. W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J. J. (1992). Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: A test of four hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 972–992.

Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity 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.

Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.

Ericsson, K. A., & Delaney, P. F. (1999). Long-term working memory as an alternative to capacity models of working memory in everyday skilled performance. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 257–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking.

Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 178–186.

Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 136–158.

743

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1993). Linguistic and cognitive correlates of academic skills in first and second languages. Language Learning, 43, 5–42.

Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.

Hasher, L., Lustig, C., & Zacks, R. T. (2007). Inhibitory mechanisms and the control of attention. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 227–249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and new view. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 193–225). New York: Academic Press.

Hasher, L., Zacks, R. T., & May, C. P. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII, Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp.

653–675). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Havik, E., Roberts, L., van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009).

Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112.

Jarrold, C., & Bayliss, D. M. (2007). Variation in working memory due to typical and atypical development. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 134–161). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jarrold, C., & Towse, J. N. (2006). Individual differences in working memory.

Neuroscience, 139, 39–50.

Jourdenais, R. (2001). Cognition, instruction, and protocol analysis. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 354–375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.

Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21, 121–151.

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.

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.

Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and 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.

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

744

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 336–358.

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.

Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence are strongly related constructs: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005). Psychological Bulletin, 131, 66–71.

Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189–217.

King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–602.

Kormos, J., & S´af´ar, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 261–271.

Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467–505.

Leow, R. P. (1998). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133–159.

Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.

Leow, R. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35–57.

Lustig, C., & Hasher, L. (2002). Working memory span: The effect of prior learning.

American Journal of Psychology, 115, 89–101.

Lustig, C., May, C. P., & Hasher, L. (2001). Working memory span and the role of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 199–207.

MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56–98.

Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (in press). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning.

745

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Mackey, A., Al-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, 129–152.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.

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: Benjamins.

May, C. P., Hasher, L., & Kane, M. J. (1999). The role of interference in memory span.

Memory & Cognition, 27, 759–767.

Miyake, A. (2001). Individual differences in working memory: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 163–168.

Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. Healy & L. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–365). London: Erlbaum.

Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oberauer, K., S¨uβ, H.-M., Wilhelm, O., & Sander, N. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and reasoning ability. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp.

49–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oberauer, K., S¨uβ, H.-M., Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. W. (2003). The multiple faces of working memory: Storage, processing, supervision, and coordination.

Intelligence, 31, 167–193.

Osaka, M., & Osaka, N. (1992). Language-independent working memory as measured

by Japanese and English reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 287–289.

Osaka, M., Osaka, N., & Groner, R. (1993). Language-independent working memory: Evidence from German and French reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 117–118.

Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfield and Hernstadt (1991). In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.

Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

746

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.

Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.

Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 211–227.

Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1998). Working memory capacity and suppression.

Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 418–436.

Rossomondo, A. E. (2007). The role of lexical temporal indicators and text interaction format in the incidental acquisition of the Spanish future tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 39–66.

Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.

Sachs, R., & Suh, B.-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sagarra, N. (2008). Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 133–147).

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Sanz, C., Lin, H.-J., Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., & Stafford, C. A. (2009). Concurrent verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: Two CALL studies.

Language Learning, 59, 33–71.

Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–93). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Smagorinsky, P. (1998). Thinking and speech and protocol analysis. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 157–177.

Smagorinsky, P. (2001). Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 233–245.

S¨uβ, H.-M., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W. W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze, R. (2002).

Working memory capacity explains reasoning ability and a little bit more.

Intelligence, 30, 261–288.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.

747

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2004). The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 255–272.

Towse, J. N., & Hitch, G. J. (1995). Is there a relationship between task demand and storage space in tests of working memory capacity? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 108–124.

Towse, J. N., & Hitch, G. J. (2007). Variation in working memory due to normal development. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 109–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Towse, J. N., Hitch, G. J., & Hutton, U. M. Z. (1998). A reevaluation of working memory capacity in children. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 195–217.

Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytic ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.

171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?

Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.

Unsworth, N. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and episodic retrieval: Examining the dynamics of delayed and continuous distractor free recall.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1020–1034.

Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (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.

Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. van den Noort, M. W. M. L., Bosch, P., & Hugdahl, K. (2006). Foreign language proficiency and working memory capacity. European Psychologist, 11, 289–296.

Walter, C. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25, 315–339.

Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Current approaches to researching second language learner processes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 98–111.

Williams, J. N. (in press). Working memory and SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (in press). The handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

748

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Appendix A Text for Reading Activity

Vacaciones en M´exico This is a text telling you about the vacation plans that two people have for the summer. You will read about some of the activities that they are going to do. When you are finished, please turn the page and complete the following tasks. Once you move to the next page, we must NOT return to this page to read the article again. You can use the glossary provided below to help you with unknown words.

El lunes Pedro y yo vamos a levantarnos temprano porque el autob´us sale a las 6 de la ma˜nana. Vamos a ir al parque nacional del Ca˜no´ n del Sumidero. El parque es impresionante. Es una maravilla de la naturaleza. En el Ca˜no´ n hace mucho calor y sol y vamos a necesitar sombrero y protecci´on solar. El traje de ba˜no tambi´en es necesario porque vamos a dar un paseo en canoa en el R´ıo Grijalva y vamos a ba˜narnos en sus frescas aguas. Vamos a divertirnos mucho.

A las 7 de la tarde vamos a subir al autob´us para continuar la ruta. En San Crist´obal de las Casas vamos a comprar souvenirs, artesan´ıa, y ropa porque es el mercado ind´ıgena m´as grande de M´exico. Por la noche, vamos a cenar en los restaurantes del pueblo y vamos a acomodarnos en un bonito hotel del centro.

El martes vamos a tener el d´ıa libre. Vamos a relajarnos y vamos a disfrutar al m´aximo. El mi´ercoles vamos a visitar la catedral y tambi´en vamos a ver las cascadas de Agua Azul que se llaman as´ı por el color azul intenso del agua. El jueves vamos a prepararnos para el retorno. Vamos a hacer la maleta y vamos a acostarnos pronto, a las 9 de la noche, porque el autob´us sale a las 7 de la ma˜nana. En definitiva, vamos a pasar unos d´ıas fant´asticos y vamos a conocer a muchos amigos.

GLOSSARY Artesan´ıa: Belleza: Calor: Can´ ˜ on: Cascada: Cenar: Conocer: En definitiva: Disfrutar: 749

handcrafts beauty hot weather canyon waterfall have dinner meet in conclusion enjoy

Protecci´on solar: Pueblo: Retorno: Ropa: Salir: Sombrero: Subir: Temprano: Traje de bano: ˜

sun cream village journey back clothes leave hat get on early swimming suit

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

Fresco: Impresionante: Intenso: Libre: Maleta: Mercado: Paseo: Pronto:

Working Memory and Reactivity

cool, refreshing astounding deep free suitcase market a walk early

Appendix B Comprehension Task 1. The text mentions 4 places Pedro and the person who is speaking are going to visit. Put a check mark next to the name of the places they are going to see: ____Guanajuato ____Barranca del Cobre ____ Ca˜no´ n del Sumidero ____San Crist´obal de las Casas ____ R´ıo Grijalva ____Chihuahua ____Puerto Vallarta ____Agua Azul ____ R´ıo Grimava

2. Can you remember why Pedro and the person who is speaking have to get up early on Monday morning? ____________________________________________________________ 3. There are three things that Pedro and the person who is speaking are planning to buy in the biggest indigenous market of Mexico. Can you remember them? _______________ _____________ _______________ 4. Which is the first place that Pedro and the person who is speaking are going to see? ____________________________________________________________ 5. What are Pedro and the person who is speaking going to do in the river? ____________________________________________________________ 6. Where are Pedro and the person who is speaking going to be accommodated? ____________________________________________________________ 7. What are Pedro and the person who is speaking going to do on their free day? ____________________________________________________________ 8. At what time are they planning to go to bed the last day? ____________________________________________________________ 9. At what time does the bus leave on the last day? ____________________________________________________________ Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

750

Goo

Working Memory and Reactivity

Appendix C Written Production Tasks Pretest You would like to tell me the plans that you and your friend have together for the weekend. For each sentence, write the appropriate form of the verb in Spanish that indicates the plan that you and your friend have.

This is an example in English: (Have dinner) We are going to have dinner at a Mexican restaurant.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

(Go up/Subir) ___________________________________a la Torre Eiffel.

(Need/Necesitar) _________________________________ mucho dinero.

(Spend/Pasar) __________________________________ un d´ıa en el zoo.

(Meet/Conocer) ________________________________ a nuevos amigos.

(Bathe/Ba˜narse) _________________________en la piscina del campus.

(Go/Ir) ________________________________ al cine a ver una pel´ıcula.

(Buy/Comprar) _____________________________ CDs de m´usica rock.

(Get ready/Prepararse) __________________ para el examen de espa˜nol.

(Have dinner/Cenar) _______________________ en un restaurante chino.

(Enjoy/Divertirse) _______________________________ en la discoteca.

(Relax/Relajarse) __________________________________ en el parque.

(Wake up/Levantarse) _______________________ a las 11 de la ma˜nana.

(Have/Tener) _____________________________________ tiempo libre.

(Visit/Visitar) _________________________________ el museo de arte.

(Go to bed/Acostarse) ________________________ a las 2 de la ma˜nana.

(Enjoy/Disfrutar) _________________________ del sol y el buen tiempo.

(Stay/Acomodarse) _________________________ en un hotel del centro.

(Throw/Dar) _________________________________ una fiesta sorpresa.

(Do/Hacer) ________________________________ las tareas de espa˜nol.

(See/Ver) _________________________________ una comedia al teatro.

Posttest You would like to tell me the plans that you and your friend have together for your spring break. For each sentence, write the appropriate form of the verb in Spanish that indicates the plans that you and your friend have.

This is an example in English: (Relax) We are going to relax in the Caribbean.

1. (Enjoy/Disfrutar) _______________________________ del sol y la brisa.

2. (Go up/Subir) __________________________________al Machu Picchu.

751

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

Goo

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Working Memory and Reactivity

(Enjoy/Divertirse) _________________________________ en la piscina.

(Need/Necesitar) _______________________________ muchos d´olares.

(Have/Tener) _______________________________ experiencias nuevas.

(Go to bed/Acostarse) ________________________ a las 5 de la ma˜nana.

(Visit/Visitar) ___________________________________ la isla de Cuba.

(Meet/Conocer) ________________________________ a muchas chicas.

(Go/Ir) ___________________________________ a la discoteca a bailar.

(Spend/Pasar) _____________________________ unas horas en la playa.

(Bathe/Ba˜narse) ___________________________ en el oc´eano Atl´antico.

(Wake up/Levantarse) ___________________________ a las 3 de la tarde.

(See/Ver) ___________________________________ una pel´ıcula al cine.

(Have dinner/Cenar) ________________________________ con amigos.

(Relax/Relajarse) ____________________________________ en el mar.

(Stay/Acomodarse) ___________________________ en un apartamento.

(Get ready/Prepararse) ___________________ para bailar por las noches.

(Do/Hacer) ________________________________ las tareas de espa˜nol.

(Throw/Dar) _________________________________ una fiesta sorpresa.

(Buy/Comprar) ________________________________ comida caribe˜na.

Language Learning 60:4, December 2010, pp. 712–752

752

Copyright of Language Learning is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.