The Impact of Working Memory on Language Gain of Corrective Feedback: A Meta-analysis

Chen Liping

Abstract


The theme of working memory has been attracting increasing interest in second language acquisition because working memory is one important cognitive variable affecting the language learning process. Previous research has focused on the relationship between working memory and corrective feedback, but the impact of the methodological factors used to measure working memory and corrective feedback in those studies on the effectiveness of working memory and corrective feedback remain unclear. The current study provides a meta-analysis of studies of working memory on the effects of language gains after corrective feedback. In this meta-analysis, samples from 12 primary studies involving 489 participants were retrieved to calculate average effect sizes of the correlations between working memory and language gains of oral corrective feedback. The results found that working memory has a positive small effect sizes on language gains of oral corrective feedback (r =.321). The findings also showed the methodological factors had an impact on the correlation between working memory and language gains of oral corrective feedback (e.g., types of corrective feedback provided, measures of working memory used, research setting of studies, and academic status of participants). These findings make a better understanding of the working mechanics of CF and WM. These findings also make methodological suggestions for future research on the study of WM on language outcomes of CF in second language acquisition.

Keywords


Meta-analysis, working memory, oral corrective feedback, second language acquisition, methodological factors

Full Text:

PDF

References


*Ahmadian, M. J. (2020). Explicit and implicit instruction of refusal strategies: Does working memory capacity play a role? Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 163-188. doi:10.1177/1362168818783215

Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci, 4(10), 829-839. doi:10.1038/nrn1201

Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies. Annu Rev Psychol, 63(1), 1-29. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422

Baddeley, A. D. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. . In Z. Wen, M. Mota, & A. McNeil (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17-28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Baddeley, A. D. (2017). Modularity, working memory and language acquisition. Second language research, 33(3), 299-311. doi:10.1177/0267658317709852

Brown, D. (2016a). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. doi:10.1177/1362168814563200

Brown, D. (2016b). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language teaching research : LTR, 20(4), 436-458. doi:10.1177/1362168814563200

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences ED 2nd ed. Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 19(4), 450-466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6

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

Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, Modified Output, and Learner Perceptions of Recasts: Learner Responses as Language Awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1-21. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x

Ellis, R. (1995). Uptake as language awareness. Language Awareness, 4(3), 147-160. doi:10.1080/09658416.1995.9959877

Engle, R. W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J. J. (1992). Individual Differences in Working Memory and Comprehension: A Test of Four Hypotheses. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 18(5), 972-992. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.972.

Ellis, R., & Roever, C. (2021). The measurement of implicit and explicit knowledge. The Language Learning Journal,49(2), 160-175.

*Fu, M., & Li, S. (2019). The associations between individual differences in working memory and the effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback. Joural of Second language studies, 2(2), 233-257. doi:10.1075/jsls.19002.fu

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second langauge acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. N. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175-199). New York/London: Routledge.

Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. (1993). Working memory and language Hove, UK: L. Erlbaum Associates.

*Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feeback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning Studies in second language acquisition, 34(3), 445-474. doi:10.1017/S0272263112000149

Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological methods, 9(4), 426.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Thousand Oaks: Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. (US).

Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428-452. doi:10.1177/1362168813519373

*Lado, B. (2008). The role of bilingualism, type of feedback, and congitive capacity in the acquisiton of non-primary langauges :a computer-based study. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Georgetown University. Washington, DC.

Li, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Metaâ€Analysis. Language learning, 60(2), 309-365. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x

*Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634-654. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x.

Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373-396.

Li, S. (2015). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.

Li, S. (2017). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction: A synthetic review. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding Individual Difference Research in the Interaction Approach. Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 41-70): John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Li, S. (2018). Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback. In A. Gudmestad & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second langauge acquisition (pp. 33-66). Amsterdam:: John Benjamins publising company.

*Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(3), 693-722. doi:10.1017/S0142716418000796.

Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev, 21(4), 861-883. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2

Long, M. (2007). Recasts in SLA: the story so far. Problems in SLA 75-116.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in second language acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.

Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language learning, 59(2), 453-498.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language teaching, 46(1), 1-40.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010a). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990520

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010b). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Studies in second language acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990520.

Mackey, & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). New York: Oxford university press.

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second Language Learning. Applied linguistics, 27(3), 405-430. doi:10.1093/applin/ami051

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development: Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x

*Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older Learners in SLA Research: A First Look at Working Memory, Feedback, and L2 Development: Older Learners in SLA Research. Language learning, 62(3), 704-740. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00649.x

*Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the Relationship Between Modified Output and Working Memory Capacity. Language learning, 60(3), 501-533. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00565.x

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.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136

Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the Use of Beta Coefficients in Meta-Analysis. J Appl Psychol, 90(1), 175-181. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175

Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2014). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second language research, 31(2), 267-278. doi:10.1177/0267658314536436

Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2012). How to do a meta-analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.

Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big� Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language learning, 64(4), 878-912.

*Revesz, A. (2012). Working Memory and the Observed Effectiveness of Recasts on Different L2 Outcome Measures. Language learning, 62(1), 93-132. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00690.x

Robinson, P. (2005). APTITUDE AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION. Ann Rev Appl Linguist, 25, 46-73. doi:10.1017/S0267190505000036

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second langauge acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on langauge learning and teaching (pp. 131-164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

*Sachs, R. (2010). Individual differences and the effectiveness of visual feedback on reflexive binding in Japanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University. Washington, DC.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Implict learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Explicit and implicit learning of langauge (pp. 165-209). London: Academic press.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

*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.

Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The Measurement of Verbal Working Memory Capacity and Its Relation to Reading Comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Working Memory. Guest Editors: Hitch and Logie, 49(1), 51-79. doi:10.1080/713755607

Wen, Z. (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: The Phonological/Executive model. In Z. Wen, M. Mota, & A. MacNeil (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 41-62). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in second language acquisition, 32(2), 235-263.

*Yang, Y. L., Zhang, L. J., & Chen, L. (2019). Effects of recasts and form-focused instruction on the acquisition of novel vocabulary. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(4), 603-624. doi:10.1515/applirev-2017-0084

*Zhao, Y. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit recasts on the acquisition of two grammatical structures and the mediating role of working memory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).. University of Auckland. New Zealand.

*Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2020). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person-s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 1362168820903343.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.30630/polingua.v12i2.280

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


           

 

 view Polingua stats

 

Â