1
PhD student of English language teaching, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2
Assistant Professor of English language teaching, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
3
Associate Professor of English language teaching, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Working Memory Capacity and Learning L2 Structures under Explicit and Implicit Condition: The Effect of Type of Linguistic Structures Working memory capacity (WMC) is shown to be correlated with explicit learning conditions, but not implicit (Reber, Walkenfeld, & Hernstadt, 1991). However, recent study shows that the relationship is more complicated (Tagarelli, Borges-Mota, &Rebuschat, 2015) and some other factors such as linguistic complexity can mediate the relationship between WMC and learning condition. This study investigated the relationship between WMC and acquisition of two English linguistic structures with varying degree of complexity, namely past simple tense and relative clauses under explicit and implicit learning conditions. Fifty-nine intermediate Persian learners of English took part in this study receiving either explicit or implicit instruction on two grammatical structures defined as easy (simple past tense) and difficult (relatives) at classroom setting. Their ability to use these structures was measured at three times; once before treatment and twice after it through a timed grammaticality judgment task and an elicited oral imitation task. Complex listening span task was used to measure their working memory capacity. The results of the two-way repeated ANOVA revealed that explicit and implicit instruction were significantly effective in development of easy and difficult structures. The results of correlation for working memory capacity and learning condition revealed that there is no significant relationship between WMC and learning under implicit condition. This result hold true for both simple and difficult linguistic structures. However, under explicit condition, differential results were found for different linguistic structures. Whereas no relationship was found for simple linguistic structures, the relationship between WMC and learning difficult linguistic structures under explicit condition was found to be significant.
· اسدزاده، حسن (1383). «بررسی رابطه ظرفیت حافظه فعال و عملکرد تحصیلی میان دانش‌آموزان پایه سوم راهنمایی شهر تهران». فصل‌نامةتعلیموتربیت. د جدید. ش 97. صص 53- 70.
میردهقان، مهین‌ناز؛ وحید نجاتی و گلناز گنجیان (1395). «تفاوت عملکرد حافظه کاری و سوگیری توجه در واژگان زبان اول و دوم در فارسی‌آموزان چینی‌زبان».جستارهایزبانی. د 7. ش 1 (پیاپی 29). صص 197- 213.
Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). “The relationship between working memory capacity and L2 oral performance under task-based careful online planning condition”. TESOL Quarterly. 46 (1). Pp. 165-175.
Ando, J.; N. Fukunaga; J. Kurahashi; T. Nakano & M. Kage (1992). “A comparative study on two EFL teaching methods: The communicative and the grammatical approach”. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology. 40. Pp. 247-56.
Baddeley, A. D. & G. Hitch (1974). “Working memory”. In G.H. Browser (Ed.). Recent Advances in Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 47-89.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D.(2000). “The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?” . Trends in Cognitive Science. 4. Pp. 417-423.
Baddeley, A. D.(2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benati, A. (2005). “The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense”. Language Teaching Research. 9 (1). Pp. 67-93.
Daneman, M. & P. A. Carpenter (1980). “Indidivdual differences in working memory and reading”. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behaviour. 19 (4). Pp. 450-466.
De Graaff, R. (1997). “The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19. Pp. 249-276.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). “Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 17. Pp. 379-410.
Ellis, R. (2005). “Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 27. Pp. 14-172.
Ellis, R. S.; Loewen; C. Elder; R. Eralm; J. Philp & H. Reinders (2009). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2005). “Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition”. Language Teaching Research. 9 (2). Pp. 147-171.
Housen, A.; M. Pierrard & S. Van Daele (2005). “Rule complexity and the efficacy ofexplicit grammar instruction”. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.). Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-269). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hulstijn, J. H. & R. de Graaff (1994). “Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal”. AILA Review. 11. Pp. 97-112.
Kaufman, S.B.; C. G. DeYoung; J. R. Gray; L. Jimenez; J. Brown & N. Mackintosh (2010). “Implicit learning as an ability”. Cognition. 110. Pp. 321-340.
Lightbown, P. M. (1980). “The acquisition and use of questions by French L2 learners”. In S. Felix (Ed.). Second Language Development: Trends and Issues (pp. 151-175).Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Mackey, A.; J. Philip; T. Egi; A. Fujii & T. Tatsumi (2002). “Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development”. In P.Robinson (Ed.). Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Pp. 181-209.
Miyake, A. & N. P. Friedman (1998). “Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude”. In A.F. Healy & L.E. Bourne (Eds.). Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Retention and Training. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pp. 339-364.
Pienemann, M. (1989). “Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypothesis”. Applied Linguistics. 10. Pp.217-244.
Ravem, R. (1973). “Language acquisition in a second language environment”. In J. Oller & J. Richards (Eds.). Focus on the Learner (pp. 136-144). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Reber, A. S. (1976). “Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional set”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. 2. Pp. 88-94.
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reber, A. S.; F. F. Walkenfeld & R. Hernstadt (1991). “Implicit and explicit learning: Individual differences and IQ”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 17. Pp. 888-896.
Robinson, P. (1996). “Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, enhanced and instructed conditions”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19(2). Pp. 233-247.
Robinson, P. (2005). “Aptitude and second language acquisition”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 25. Pp. 45-73.
Rodriguez, G. A. (2008). Second Language Sentence Processing: Is it fundamentally Different? Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Sagarra, N. & J. Herschensohn (2010). “The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number agreement marking in processing in L1 and L2 Spanish”. Lingua. 120. Pp. 2022-2039.
Schuman, J. (1979). “The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: A review of the literature”. In R. Andersen (Ed). The acquisition and use of Spanish and English as first and second languages (Pp.3-32). Washington DC: TESOL.
Skehan, P. (2002). “Theorizing and updating aptitude”. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning (Pp. 69-93). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Spada, N. & Y. Tomita (2010). “Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis”. Language Learning. 60(2). Pp. 263-308.
Tagarelli, K. M.; M. Borges-Mota & P. Rebuschat (2011). “The role of working memory in implicit and explicit language learning”. In L.Carlson, C. Holscher & T. Shipley (Ed.). Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Tagarelli, K. M.; M., Borges-Mota & P. Rebuschat (In press). “Working memory, learning context, and the acquisition of L2 syntax”. In W. Zhisheng, M. Borges Mota & A. McNeill (Eds.). Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing: Theory, Research and Commentary. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Williams, J. N. & P. P. Lovatt (2003). “Phonological memory and rule learning”. Language Learning. 53. Pp. 67-121.
jahanghiri aghdam,K. , soleimani,H. and jafarigohar,M. (2017). Working Memory Capacity and Learning L2 Structures under Explicit and Implicit Condition: The Effect of Linguistic Feature. Language Related Research, 8(2), 53-76.
MLA
jahanghiri aghdam,K. , soleimani,H. , and jafarigohar,M. . "Working Memory Capacity and Learning L2 Structures under Explicit and Implicit Condition: The Effect of Linguistic Feature", Language Related Research, 8, 2, 2017, 53-76.
HARVARD
jahanghiri aghdam,K.,soleimani,H.,jafarigohar,M. (2017). 'Working Memory Capacity and Learning L2 Structures under Explicit and Implicit Condition: The Effect of Linguistic Feature', Language Related Research, 8(2), pp. 53-76.
CHICAGO
K. jahanghiri aghdam, H. soleimani and M. jafarigohar, "Working Memory Capacity and Learning L2 Structures under Explicit and Implicit Condition: The Effect of Linguistic Feature," Language Related Research, 8 2 (2017): 53-76,
VANCOUVER
jahanghiri aghdam,K.,soleimani,H.,jafarigohar,M. Working Memory Capacity and Learning L2 Structures under Explicit and Implicit Condition: The Effect of Linguistic Feature. Language Related Research, 2017; 8(2): 53-76.
Language Related Research
