Reasoning in lexical tasks during reading: Effects on recognition memory and L2 development

1. Reasoning in lexical tasksduring reading: Effects on recognition memory and L2 development Ana Martínez-Fernández Department of Spanish and Portuguese Georgetown University TBLT 2009

2. Introduction • SLA research on incidental vocabulary learning • SLA research on task-based learning • Cognitive psychology research on recognition memory Task demands Long-term recognition memory? Deep / cognitive processing L2 development

3. Literature review I • The Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) • Tasks inducing higher involvement lead to higher vocabulary retention • ‘Need’ (N) • ‘Search’ (S) • ‘Evaluation’ (E) • Conflicting results • Hulstijn & Laufer (2001) • Martínez-Fernández (2008) Glosses [+N, -S,-E] Fill-in-the-blanks [+N, -S,+E]

4. Literature Review II • No control for the distance between the targeted words to fill in the blanks and distracters • Hulstijn & Laufer (2001) • No process measures to ensure that tasks led to the involvement predicted • Martínez-Fernández (2008) • Think-aloud protocols • No control for reactivity

5. Literature review III • The Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2001, 2005, 2007) • Task complexity is determined by cognitive factors • This prediction has not been tested in the area of incidental vocabulary learning and text comprehension Complex tasks with features that direct the cognitive effort to linguistic forms [+/- Reasoning] Noticing and long-term retention

6. Literature review IV No studies investigating the effects of reasoning on memory Tulving (1983) distinguished two subsystems of recognition memory Studies show that deep processing enhances episodic memory, which may have a positive effect on learning (Gardiner, 2008) Long-term declarative memory Episodic memory Semantic memory Experience of remembering Experience of knowing

7. Research questions • Does the extent of reasoning involved in a reading comprehension task plus fill-in task have a differential effect on recognition memory? • Does the extent of reasoning involved in a reading comprehension task plus fill-in task have a differential effect on vocabularydevelopment? • Does the extent of reasoning involved in a reading comprehension task plus fill-in task have a differential effect on text comprehension?

8. Research Design • Independent variables • Between-subjects: Extent of reasoning • [+R] • [-R] • Control • Within-subject: • Time: Immediate posttest, 1-week delayed posttest • Type of word: Targeted words, alternate words • Dependent variables • Recognition memory • Vocabulary development: production & recognition • Text comprehension: local ideas & global ideas [+R, +TA], [+R, -TA] [-R, +TA], [-R, -TA]

9. Participants • 71 English-speaking adults enrolled in college-level second-year Spanish language courses • Original pool: N = 147; participants were excluded from the final sample for any of the following reasons: • They failed to attend all sessions • They did not follow the instructions • They had prior knowledge of one or more targeted words • They had had outside exposure to the targeted words either between the pretest and the treatment or between the treatment and the delayed posttest

10. Experimental Texts and Items • Experimental text • Fairy tale in Spanish (“El verdadero valor del anillo”in Déjame que te cuente, by Jorge Bucay) • 646 words • Targeted items • 12 unfamiliar nouns (after excluding 4) • 6 targeted words (3 concrete and 3 abstract) • 6 alternate words (3 concrete and 3 abstract)

11. Experimental Task I • [+ Reasoning] • Participants read a text containing 8 blanks. To fill in each blank they had to choose one of two glossed words. Only one was correct based on specific contextual clues.

12. Experimental Task II • [- Reasoning] • Participants read the same text and filled in the blanks. One of the two options was clearly incorrect because it had the opposite lexical feature [+/- concrete] to that selected by the previous word. • Both tasks were pilot-tested with two native speakers and three students of Spanish

13. Treatment • Random assignment to groups • [+R, +TA] N = 15 • [+R, -TA] N = 16 • [-R, +TA] N = 13 • [-R, -TA] N = 14 • [Control, +TA] N = 13 • Oral instructions to think aloud • Information about subsequent comprehension questions • Time on task was measured but not controlled

14. Assessment Tasks and Procedure I Week 1: Pretest Week 2: Treatment + Immediate Posttest Week 3:Delayed Posttest Multiple-choice meaning recognition test (32 items) Text comprehension test (12 open questions: 6 global and 6 local) Memory judgment task Oral + written instructions for the memory judgment task followed by the task Vocabulary tests - Production - Recognition • Vocabulary tests (32 items) • Meaning production • Meaning recognition Post-debriefing questionnaire

15. Assessment Tasks and Procedure II • Instructions for the memory judgment task: • Definitions and examples • 4 participants were asked to think aloud • Items: 6 targeted words, 6 alternate words, 6 distractors • All tasks were timed • Items were presented one by one with a Power Point presentation • Participants provided their answers in an answer sheet YES / NO IF YES: R / K / G

16. Analysis and Results • One-way ANOVA on time on task: • F(4, 71) = 8.698, p = .00 • [+TA] groups spent significantly more time on task than [-TA] groups • One-way ANOVA on performance on the fill-in task: • F(3, 58) = 10.854, p = .00 • [-R] groups significantly outperformed [+R] groups • Index of performance quality on the remember-know task • Hits minus false alarms • Reliability of tasks: Cronbach’s alpha • Text comprehension = .71 • Meaning production = .57 • Meaning recognition = .39

17. Results: Recognition Memory • Data were submitted to 5 x 2 x 3 Repeated measures ANOVA

18. Results: Recognition Memory (Targeted Words) Response by Time for Targeted Words (TW)

19. Results: Recognition Memory (Targeted Words) Response by Group for TW on the immediate posttest Response by Group for TW on the delayed posttest

20. Results: Recognition Memory (Alternate Words) Response by Group for AW on the immediate posttest Response by Group for AW on the delayed posttest

21. Results: Vocabulary Development • Data on vocabulary were submitted to 5 x 2 x 3 Repeated Measures ANOVA

22. Results: Meaning Production (TW)

23. Results: Meaning Production (AW) +R, +TA +R, -TA

24. Results: Meaning Recognition (TW)

25. Results: Meaning Recognition (AW) +R, +TA +R, -TA

26. Results: Text Comprehension I • Data on text comprehension were submitted to 5 x 2 Repeated measures ANOVA

27. Results: Text Comprehension II

28. Results: Qualitative Data I • [+R] conditions • Considered both options given to fill in the blanks • Continued reading to find clues in the context, and test their hypotheses “I think it’s un cortijo…[7 lines below] You know what? This man is very poor, he would never have an estate, he has a shack… chabola” “clumsiness or weakness, both could work [continues reading] Oh, he breaks everything. He’s clumsy, not weak””

29. Results: Qualitative Data II • [-R] conditions • Do not verbalize the alternate words • Reasoning refers to common knowledge of the world • Control condition • Skipped targeted unfamiliar words • Commented lack of knowledge • Contextual guessing “he is pointing at a shack, chabola” “weakness doesn’t make sense, so it’s gonna be horse, because he’s gonna take something and the weakness is not something you can take”

30. Results: Qualitative Data III • R: I remember because I remember reading it on a side, and also because I wasn’t sure if it was pronounced “real” or “rial” so I remember thinking about that • K: I think it was… I don’t remember where but I’m pretty sure that it was in there; Yes, I don’t remember where I saw it, but I know it was in there • G: It’s a pure guess, I don’t remember that word, period; Yes, I am guessing, maybe when Fernando was in the market

31. Results: Qualitative Data IV • Some Know experiences may be interpreted as guessing: • I feel like that was in there, I almost think that it was one of the words in the margin but I am not very sure; Yes, but I’m guessing • Some Remember experiences may be interpreted as knowing: • Yes, it was in the text, I remember reading it, I remember being unsure of what it meant, but I can’t remember where in the text it was. So I guess I know it was in the text, but I don’t remember where

32. Discussion I • RQ 1: Effect of [+/-R] on recognition memory • Overall, the [+R] groups remembered more TW than the other groups • Thinking aloud while performing a complex task may help maintain episodic memories over a period of a week • There was a significant decrease of R responses in the [-TA] group on the delayed posttest, and a significant increase of K responses • Remember-to-know shift (Knowlton & Squire, 1995; Conway et al., 1997) • The [+R] groups remembered significantlymore AW than the other groups, and this effect was mantained over a period of a week • No reactivity for thinking aloud on immediate or delayed posttests

33. Discussion II • RQ 2: Effect of [+/-R] on vocabulary development • Only the [+R] groups significantly outperformed the control group, due to their higher performance on AW • Even though performance on the fill-in task was significantly lower in the [+R] conditions • Cognitive complexity did not affect time on task • Thinking aloud and time on task did not affect performance on the posttests • Support for previous SLA studies on reactivity (Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Bowles, 2008; Medina, 2008; Yoshida, 2008)

34. Discussion III • The [+R] effect was not retained after one week, in contrast to what the Cognition Hypothesis predicts • Consistent with incidental vocabulary learning studies (Watanabe, 1997; Bowles, 2004) • Studies where multiple encounters with the targeted words are provided show significant differences between task conditions on delayed posttests (Rott, 2005; Martínez-Fernández, 2008) • The superiority of [+R] group cannot be explained by the Involvement Load Hypothesis, since both tasks have the same involvement load: [+N, -S, +E]

35. Discussion IV • The [+R] groups: • Remembered significantly more words, especially alternate words, than the [-R] groups and the control group • Produced and recognized the meaning of significantly more words, especially alternate words, than the control group • It may be hypothesized that the meaning of those words that received remember responses were produced and recognized to a greater extent than those that received know or guess responses

36. Discussion V • RQ 3: Effect of [+/-R] on text comprehension • All groups reached high comprehension of global ideas • All experimental groups reached significantly higher comprehension of local ideas than the control group • Learners can perform this type of dual task (i.e., a lexical task embedded in a reading comprehension task) with different degrees of cognitive complexity, without negatively affecting text comprehension

37. Limitations and future research • Increase the validity of the remember-know task • Refine vocabulary learning measures • Low reliability • Refine the design of fill-in tasks • Think-aloud protocols showed that not all blanks in the fill-in task led to reasoning and evaluating to the same degree in the complex condition • Future studies should • Investigate the interaction between cognitive complexity and amount of exposure • Compare the effect of fill-in tasks and glosses in reading comprehension tasks, controlling for the effect of cognitive complexity • Investigate the role of recognition memory in L2 development • Examine the effects of thinking aloud on recognition memory and L2 learning

38. References • Bowles, M. A. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not CALL. Hispania, 87(3), 541-552. • 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(3), 359-387. • Bowles, M. A. & Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 415-440. • Conway, M.A., Gardiner, J. M., Perfect, T.J., Anderson, S.J., & Cohen, G.M. (1997). Changes in Memory Awareness During Learning: The Acquisition of Knowledge by Psychology Undergraduates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126,393-413. • Gardiner, J.M. (2008). Remembering and Knowing. In Byrne, J. H. (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference, Vol. 2, pp. 285-305. UK: Academic Press. • Knowlton, B. J. & Squire, L. R. (1995). Remembering and Knowing: Two Different Expressions of Declarative Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 699-710. • Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26. • 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(1), 35-57.

39. Martínez-Fernández, A. (2008). Revisiting the involvement load hypothesis: Awareness, type of task and type of item. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán, & B. Rakesh (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 210-228). Somerville (MA): Cascadilla Proceedings Press. Medina, A. (2008). Concurrent verbalization, task complexity, and working memory: effects on L2 learning in a computerized task. Unpublished dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction, p. 237-318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45-73. Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (p. 7-27). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Rott, S. (2005). Processing glosses: A qualitative exploration of how form-meaning connections are established and strengthened. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(2), 95-124. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(3), 287-307. Yoshida, M. (2008). Think-aloud protocols and type of reading task: The issue of reactivity in L2 reading research. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán, & Bhatt, R. (Eds.)Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum, (pp. 199-209). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

40. Thank you!