1 / 24

DAI Binbin Amy The Chinese University of Hong Kong E-mail: binbindai@yahoo

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: binbindai@yahoo.com The 3rd international conference on TBLT

amal
Download Presentation

DAI Binbin Amy The Chinese University of Hong Kong E-mail: binbindai@yahoo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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: binbindai@yahoo.com • The 3rd international conference on TBLT • University of Lancaster, Sep 13-16 2009

  2. Empirical studies linking working memory (WM) capacity & noticing What have been done? Weak relationship (p=0.051) (1) Mackey et al. (2002) Noticing: stimulated recall & exit questionnaire Working memory: English non-word recall, L1&L2 listening span tests No relationship (2) Trofimovich et al. (2007) Noticing: visually cued discrimination Working memory: letter-number sequencing test However, Very few studies have made an attempt to link the understanding level with WM capacity !! Besides, 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, facilitative for language learning

  3. 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 The effect of WM capacity on interaction- driven L2 development

  4. 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? Research Questions

  5. How did I design my research? Learner participants:(non-English major/ undergraduates/ mainland China) Thebackground information of learner participants (24)

  6. 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) 24 participants selected among a large number of students for: Assumptions for two-way ANOVA: Shapiro-Wilk normality tests & Homogeneity of variances tests • Normal distribution of both scores of c-test and WM test • Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances (ns) • No significant difference among each group at the beginning The phonological loop Central executive component Non-word recall test 42 English non-words from Prof. Skehan’s project in CUHK L2 listening span test 3 sets per each sentence span level (2-5), 42 sentences in total

  7. 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 Native speaker interlocutors Two male experienced interlocutors Four carefully designed training procedures Individual training

  8. Procedure Working memory test & C-test (1) Pretest (1/5) Treatment 1 (2/1) Treatment 2 (2/2) Treatment 3 (2/3) Immediate posttest (2/4) Stimulated recall (2/4) Delayed posttest (5/5) Procedure (Week/ Day)

  9. Materials Treatment and assessment tasks Task Linguistic target Type Direction of information English questions Information exchange Spot-the-difference Two-way (10 mins) Picture-drawing English questions Information gap One-way (10 mins) English past tense Information gap One-way Story-telling Task sequence was all the same in both treatment sessions and tests.

  10. 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 Stimulated recall

  11. Scoring: “one noticing/understanding, one point” policy number of N/U noticing/understanding ratio= total number of comments • Coding and scoring: stimulated recall comments Stimulated Recall Comments (LRES) Others (Other, No Thoughts, Thoughts Forgotten) Focus on Meaning Focus on Form Noticing L2 Form Understanding L2 Form Noticing: a verbal reference to the target structures without or with mention of rules. Understanding: an explicit formulation of the rule underlying the target structures

  12. 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 Scoring and coding : task performance

  13. What did I find in my research? The relationship between WM & Awareness • Questions: Understanding data: none from recall comments p=0.27 ns • Past tense p=0.056 d=0.87 p=0.64 ns

  14. The relationship between L2 proficiency & Awareness • Questions p=0.11, ns • Past tense p=0.44, ns p=0.64, ns

  15. L2 proficiency, WM & interaction-driven development • Questions • Questions • Questions Post-test Post-test Post-test Post-test p=0.041 Delayed Post-test Delayed Post-test Delayed Post-test p=0.013

  16. L2 proficiency, WM & interaction-driven development • Questions Post-test Delayed Post-test

  17. L2 proficiency, WM & interaction-driven development • Past tense

  18. Interaction (WM*Pro) in the posttest

  19. Interaction (WM*Pro) in the delayed posttest

  20. Development over time • Past tense

  21. 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) Provisional Conclusion • 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)

  22. 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

  23. 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.

  24. Question & Answers Thank You! My Email: binbindai@yahoo.com

More Related