Presentation on theme: "Re-examining Individual Differences in Working Memory, Learner Awareness of L2 Forms and L2 Development through Recasts on Task- basked Interaction DAI."— Presentation transcript:
Re-examining Individual Differences in Working Memory, Learner Awareness of L2 Forms and L2 Development through Recasts on Task- basked Interaction DAI Binbin Amy The Chinese University of Hong Kong E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org The 3rd international conference on TBLT University of Lancaster, Sep 13-16 2009
facilitative for language learning Empirical studies linking working memory (WM) capacity & noticing (1) Mackey et al. (2002) (2) Trofimovich et al. (2007) Weak relationship (p=0.051) No relationship What have been done? However, Very few studies have made an attempt to link the understanding level with WM capacity !! Roberts (1995) & Mackey et al. (2007): L2 proficiency noticing & understanding (1) To make an attempt to explore the relationship between WM capacity and understanding (2) L2 proficiency levels will be regarded as an independent variable Therefore, Besides, Noticing: stimulated recall & exit questionnaire Working memory: English non-word recall, L1&L2 listening span tests Noticing: visually cued discrimination Working memory: letter-number sequencing test
The effect of WM capacity on interaction- driven L2 development Ando et al. (1992) Grammar Approach (Higher WM, More development) VS. Communicative Approach (Lower WM, More development) Mackey et al. (2002) Lower WM, More development (immediate posttest) Sagarra (2007) Higher WM, More development (delayed posttest) Trofimovich et al. (2007) No relationship in immediate posttest
Research Questions Is there a relationship between WM capacity and learner awareness of recasts in interactional feedback at respective two levels (noticing and understanding)? Is there a relationship between learners L2 proficiency levels and their awareness of recasts in interactional feedback at respective two levels (noticing and understanding)? What are the effects of learners L2 proficiency and WM capacity on their L2 improvement?
Learner participants: ( non-English major/ undergraduates/ mainland China ) Age (Number of participants) 18 (4)19 (6)20 (4)21 (6)22 (3)23 (1) Gender (Number of participants) MaleFemale 816 Major (Number of participants) ScienceArts 186 Grade (Number of participants) OneTwoThree 12210 Mother tongue All Mandarin Other languages All English ( including two have learnt some Japanese) Age of starting learning English (Number of participants) 7-9 (3)10 (5)11(3)12 (3)13 (8)14 (2) Learning experience abroad All None The background information of learner participants (24) How did I design my research?
Learner participants Voluntary participation Proficiency levels C-test (mean=46.13, SD=6.05) (high 47 vs. low 46) WM capacity levels Composite score= z (Non-word) + z (L2 listening span) (high>0 vs. low<0) 51 freshmen in XJTU: two classes, one English teacher Four extracts of English articles (Dörnyei and Katona, 1992) Cronbach's Alpha=.770 Concurrent validity (1) C-test (June 17) & Term Proficiency Test (May 25) ( r =.583, p<0.01) (2) C-test (June 17) & CET-4 (June 21) ( r =.633, p<0.01) The phonological loop Central executive component Non-word recall test L2 listening span test 42 English non-words from Prof. Skehans project in CUHK 3 sets per each sentence span level (2-5), 42 sentences in total 24 participants selected among a large number of students for: Assumptions for two-way ANOVA: Shapiro-Wilk normality tests & Homogeneity of variances tests Normal distribution of both scores of c-test and WM test Levenes Test of Equality of Error Variances (ns) No significant difference among each group at the beginning
Native speaker interlocutors Two male experienced interlocutors Four carefully designed training procedures Watching the video of the instruction of recasts Demonstrating b&g examples from the video clips of pilot study Role-playing all tasks involved (video-taped) Reflecting the role-playing process Individual training
Materials Treatment and assessment tasks TaskLinguistic targetType Direction of information Spot-the-difference English questions Information exchange Two-way Picture-drawing English questions Information gap One-way Story-telling English past tense Information gap One-way Task sequence was all the same in both treatment sessions and tests. (10 mins)
Stimulated recall has been applied as an introspective measure of L2 learners cognitive processes, especially noticing. Immediately after the first posttest Video clips of nearly all of LREs (Language-related episodes) 15%-20% distracters & self-initiated recall allowed at any time (recasts of non-linguistic targets / correct responses etc.) Pausing at the end of each LRE and asking what were you thinking at that time? (strict training for the researcher) L1 of recall comments
Coding and scoring: stimulated recall comments Stimulated Recall Comments (LRES) Focus on MeaningFocus on Form Others (Other, No Thoughts, Thoughts Forgotten) Noticing L2 FormUnderstanding L2 Form Noticing: a verbal reference to the target structures without or with mention of rules. Understanding: an explicit formulation of the rule underlying the target structures Scoring: one noticing/understanding, one point policy number of N/U noticing/understanding ratio= total number of comments
Scoring and coding : task performance Question formation 6 Stages based on Pienemann & Johnston (1987) and adapted from a series of studies 2 different higher level structures in two different tasks coded as development Past tense Targetlike forms in obligatory contexts were counted accuracy of production
What did I find in my research? The relationship between WM & Awareness Questions: Understanding data: none from recall comments Noticing (percentage) WMC Mean SD High21.89 26.65 Low12.29 18.24 p=0.27 ns Past tense Noticing (percentage) WMCMean SD high40.27 27.43 low22.19 14.42 p=0.056 d=0.87 Understanding (percentage) WMCMean SD high18.32 21.26 low11.15 10.12 p=0.64 ns
L2 proficiency, WM & interaction-driven development Questions WMC L2 developmentHighLowTotal Development 3811 No development 9413 Total 12 24 p=0.041 WMC L2 developmentHighLowTotal Development 2810 No development 10414 Total 12 24 p=0.013 Delayed Post-test Post-test Questions WMC L2 developmentHighLowTotal Development3811 No development9413 Total12 24 Post-test WMC L2 developmentHighLowTotal Development 2810 No development 10414 Total 12 24 Delayed Post-test WMC L2 developmentHighLowTotal Development3811 No development9413 Total12 24 Post-test Questions WMC L2 developmentHighLowTotal Development 2810 No development 10414 Total 12 24 Delayed Post-test WMC L2 developmentHighLowTotal Development3811 No development9413 Total12 24 Post-test
Questions Proficiency L2 developmentHighLowTotal Development 5611 No development 7613 Total 12 24 Delayed Post-test Proficiency L2 developmentHighLowTotal Development6511 No development6713 Total12 24 Post-test L2 proficiency, WM & interaction-driven development p=0.68 ns p=0.68 ns
L2 proficiency, WM & interaction-driven development Variables WM (Means) Sig. Effect Size (d) Proficiency (Means) Sig. Effect Size (d) Interaction WM*Pro HighLowHighLow Sig. Posttest58.0246.75.26.4946.47126.96.36.199.04 Delayed posttest 67.96188.8.131.5261.2766.01.54.27.04 Past tense
Development over time Past tense VariablesSig. Test of Sphericity Test.000 Sig.=.149 (assumption was met) Test*Proficiency.598 Test*WMC.572 Test*WM*Proficiency.092
Provisional Conclusion The relationship between WM capacity & noticing Questions: showing the trend towards High WM-High Noti (ns) Past tense: showing the trend towards High WM-High Noti (ns but large effect size) The relationship between WM capacity & understanding Questions: data unavailable Past tense: showing the trends towards HWM-HUnder (ns) The relationship between proficiency level & noticing Questions & Past tense: showing the trend towards LPro-HNoti (ns) The relationship between proficiency level & understanding Questions: data unavailable Past tense: showing the trend towards HPro-HUnder (ns) The effects of proficiency and WM on L2 development Questions: Low WM capacity more development (both posttests) Past tense: LProHWM more development (both posttests)
References Ando, J., Fukunaga, N., Kurahashi, J., Suto, T., Nakano, T., & Kage, M. (1992). A comparative study on two EFL teaching methods: The communicative and the grammatical approach. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 247-256. Dörnyei, Z., & Katona, L. (1992). Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL learners. Language Testing, 9 (2), 187-206. Mackey, A., AI-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama M., Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers intentions and learners perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1), 129-152. Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T, Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning, (pp. 181-209). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
References Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying Second Language Acquisition Research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP. Roberts, M.A. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention & awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 163-182). Hawaii: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: the effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp.229-248). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp.144-171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Question & Answers My Email: email@example.com