Investigating the Effect of Working Memory Capacity on English Vocabulary and Grammar Learning in Inductive and Deductive Instructional Methods

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
M. Nemati 1
S. M. Alavi 2
A. Seifi 3
1 Associate Professor of TEFL, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor of Applied Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Ph.D. student of TEFL, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
10.29252/LRR.13.4.24
Abstract
Working memory as a cognitive system is considered as one of the sources of individual differences in second language learning by many researchers. In order to examine the relationship between the capacity of two components of working memory (as one of the sources of individual differences in learning) and learning English vocabulary and grammar (as basic components in learning a second language), and also to explore the effect of instructional method as an effective variable along with working memory capacity, a convenience sampling method research was conducted. Subjects of this study were 74 female language learners selected from children between 9-12years old. These learners were at the beginner level in terms of English language proficiency. In order to determine the phonological loop capacity, non-word repetition test and digit recall test were used and, counting recall test and backward digit recall test were employed to determine central executive capacity. Based on the scores of these tests, language learners were divided into two homogeneous groups. The first group received inductive instruction and the second group underwent deductive instruction. Linear regression and two sample independent t-test were used for data analysis. The results indicated that both the phonological loop capacity and the central executive capacity had a significant effect on English vocabulary and grammar learning. Moreover, deductive teaching method significantly leads to better results in terms of grammar learning compared to the inductive teaching method.



Introduction

Second language teachers observe significant differences between language learners regarding learning speed and final achievement in classrooms. Many factors can lead to such individual differences in learning a second language. Working memory as one of these sources of individual differences has been the focus of attention by many researchers over the past three decades. Learning a second language depends on a set of cognitive processes and systems, and working memory is one of these cognitive systems. Accordingly, this study attempts to find the effect of working memory on second language learning in children and under various instructional methods as a subject that has remained almost untouched, especially in Iran. Baddeley’s model of working memory was adopted as the theoretical framework of this study.

Research questions:

Q1- Do the capacity of the phonological loop and the capacity of central executive as two components of working memory have a significant effect on learning English vocabulary and grammar in 9-12-year-old children?

Q2- Does the deductive instructional method compared to the inductive method have any more significant effect on learning English vocabulary and grammar in 9-12-year-old children with almost the same level of working memory capacity?



2. Literature review

Working memory is a term that has grown out of memory studies and refers to the active processing system that manipulates information, explains our ability to remember information, and often occurs despite distracting information that we have to ignore (Alloway & Alloway, 2010). According to Baddeley (2015) to explore the role of working memory in learning a second language, which is a relatively new research field, it is necessary to conduct more extensive researches in different languages, different age groups, and different environmental and educational conditions. The greater the number of studies, the more accurate the results and findings will be. A number of studies have confirmed that the phonological loop capacity plays an important role in vocabulary learning. Martin and Ellis (2012), Kormos and Sáfár (2008), French (2006) and O'Brien et al. (2006) are examples of these researches. Moreover some studies indicate that working memory plays an important role in the production and processing of second language such as Trude &Tokowicz (2011), Gass and Lee (2011), Finardi and Weissheimer (2009), Leeser (2007), French (2006) and Sunderman and Kroll (2006).



3. Methodology

This research is a quasi-experimental classroom research. Convenience sampling was used in recruiting the subjects of this study. The study was carried out at Lesan English language institute in Gorgan, Iran. The age of the participants ranged from 9 to 12. The participants consisted of 74 language learners who were beginners in terms of English language proficiency level and had almost no knowledge of English writing, speech, vocabulary, and grammar. Initially, the students took 4 subtests of "working Memory Test Battery for Children". To determine the phonological loop capacity, two tests of non-word repetition and digit recall were used, and to determine the central executive capacity, two tests of counting recall and backward digit recall were taken. Learners were divided into two homogeneous groups according to their working memory test results. 36 of these language learners were taught inductively (-rule-explanation, +production-practice, self/pair-correction) and 38 were taught deductively (+rule-explanation, +production-practice, teacher-correction). Both groups completed 21 instructional sessions. During the instructional sessions, both groups took four classroom written tests and four oral tests, and the average scores of the subjects in vocabulary and grammar were considered as a criterion for their learning. The relationship between the phonological loop and the central executive capacity and the scores of English grammar and vocabulary as a learning criterion were examined to determine whether there is a significant correlation between them or not. First, the reliability of collected data and data distribution normality were checked and confirmed. Then the effect of the phonological loop and the central executive capacity was first examined separately and then in combination with the learning of English vocabulary and grammar.



4. Results

The results revealed that both independent variables, namely the phonological loop and the central executive capacity (both separately and in combination) have a positive and significant effect on the dependent variables, English vocabulary, and grammar learning, in children. The capacity of the phonological loop has a greater impact on learning English vocabulary, and the central executive capacity has a greater impact on learning English grammar. Considering the second hypothesis, the results of this study indicated that there is no significant difference in learners’ performance regarding vocabulary learning in inductive and deductive instructional groups, but the learners of the deductive group performed significantly better in grammar learning than the inductive group. This may be due to the fact that attention is one of the functions of the central executive component and by reducing the pressure on working memory, or in other words, by reducing the need for simultaneous attention to form and meaning, better results can be achieved in learning grammar (specially for learners with poor working memory).

Keywords

Subjects

الهی، ط.، آزادفلاح، پ.، فتحی‌آشتیانی، ع. و پورحسین، ر. (1388). بررسی تحول حافظه کاری در کودکان 7-5 ساله. پژوهش‌های نوین روانشناختی.4(14). 22-1.
جهانگیری، ک.، سلیمانی، ه. و جعفری گهر، م. (1396). ظرفیت حافظة فعال و یادگیری ساختارهای زبان دوم در محیط ضمنی و صریح: تأثیر نوع ساختار زبانی. جستارهای زبانی.8(2). 76-53.
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). Working memory and language processing. In B.E. Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1–16). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.40.02bad
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders,36 (3), 189-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4.
Baddeley, A. D. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen, M. B. Mota & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17-28). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595-005
Elahi, T., Azad fallah, P., Fathi ashtiani, A., & Pourhossein, R. (2009). Evaluation of working memory development in 5-7 year old children. New psychological researches, 4(14). 1-22.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research. 20(3), 405-428. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168816628627.
Finardi, K., & Weissheimer, J. (2009). On the relationship between working memory capacity and L2 speech development. Signótica,20, 367-391. https://doi.org/10.5216/sig.v20i2.6085.
Fortkamp, M. B. M. (1999). Working memory capacity and aspects of L2 speech production. Communication & Cognition, 32(3-4), 259–295.
French, L. M. (2006). Phonological working memory and second language acquisition: A developmental study of Francophone children learning English in Quebec. Edwin Mellen Press.
Gass, S. & Lee, J. (2011). Working memory capacity, inhibitory control, and proficiency in a second language. In M. Schmid & W. Lowie (Eds.) Modeling bilingualism: from structure to chaos. (pp. 59-84). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.43.06gas
Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide for teachers. Sage.
Gathercole, S. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(4), 513-543. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060383
Jahangiri, K., Soleimani, H. & Jafarigohar, M. (2018). Working Memory Capacity and Learning L2 Structures under Explicit and Implicit Condition: The Effect of Linguistic Feature. Language Related research. 8 (2). 53-76.
Kormos, J., Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728908003416
Leeser, M. J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00408.x
Luciana, M., Conklin, H. M., Hooper, C. J., & Yarger, R. S. (2005). The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control processes in adolescents. Child Development. 76(3), 697-712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00872.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 (Eds.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp.181-209). Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.12mac
Martin , K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 379-413. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000125
Mousavi, A., khavarghazlani, B., Lotfi, Y., Mehrkian, S., Bakhshi, E., & Mahmoudi, B. (2014). Validity and reliability of a non-sense syllable test for evaluating phonological working memory in Persian speaking children. Audiol, 23(4), 31-39.
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. ( 2006). Phonological memory and lexical, narrative, and grammatical skills in second language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377-402. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060322
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. John Benjamins publishing company. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.18
Payne, J.S. & Whitney, P.J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal,20, 7-32. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v20i1.7-32
Pickering, S. (2006). Assessment of Working Memory in Children. In S. Pickering, (Eds.) Working Memory and Education. (pp.241-307). Academic Press.
Robinson, P. (2002 ). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude, and working memory on adult incidental SLA. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp.181-209). Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.13rob
Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign-language learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 21-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749208401314
Sunderman, G., Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 387-422. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060177
Trude, A. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Negative transfer from Spanish and English to Portuguese pronunciation: The roles of inhibition and working memory. Language learning. 61 (1), 259-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00611.x
Wen, Z. (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: The phonological/executive model. In Wen, Z., Mota & M., McNeill, A. (Eds.). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 41–62). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595
Wilhelm, O. & Wittman. W. (2003). The multiple faces of working memory: Storage, processing, supervision, and coordination. Intelligence, 31(2), 167-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00115-0
Wright, C. (2015). Working memory and L2 development across the lifespan: A commentary. In Wen, Z., Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 285–307). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595-020
Language Related Research
Volume 13, Issue 4 - Serial Number 70
September and October 2022
Pages 793-821