The role of working memory in the effects of models as a written corrective strategy

Eun Young Kang

doi:10.1515/iral-2021-0207

Enjoy 40% off

academic books on De Gruyter Brill *

Article

The role of working memory in the effects of models as a written corrective strategy

Eun Young Kang

Published/Copyright: May 31, 2022

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 61 Issue 4

Abstract

Several studies have evaluated the use of sample texts as models, against which second language (L2) learners can compare their original writing, as a written corrective feedback (WCF) strategy. This study contributes to this literature by investigating whether L2 learners’ working memory capacity, which is posited to play a crucial role in L2 learning, moderates the effects of models in WCF. Sixty-seven L2 college students were assigned to either a model group or a control group. Students in both groups individually engaged in a three-stage writing task (i.e., writing-comparing-rewriting), but only students in the model group received model essays during the comparison stage. Two weeks later, all participants were asked to repeat the same writing task, to investigate the long-term effects of models as well as to perform two working memory tasks: a complex working memory task (a reading span test) and a phonological short-term memory task (a non-word repetition test). Results showed that the model group learners made significant improvements in their writing, and maintained those positive effects after two weeks. In addition, complex working memory and phonological short-term memory were found to be significant predictors of the extent to which L2 learners benefitted from the use of models.

Keywords: L2 writing; models; working memory capacity; written corrective feedback

Corresponding author: EunYoung Kang, Division of Liberal Arts, Kongju National University, Cheonan, Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea, E-mail: ekang@kongju.ac.kr

Funding source: Kongju National University

Research funding: Research for this article was supported by a grant from Kongju National University in 2021.

Appendix A: Rubric

Score	Content	Organization	Grammar	Vocabulary
6	Successfully develops a position on a topic or argument with persuasive examples and reasons	A clear organizational structure with a logical progression, linking ideas to supporting points from start to finish, from paragraph to paragraph and sentence to sentence	Shows a superior control of writing, with impeccable grammar, mechanics, and usage-yet may have a few minor, non-repeated errors	Includes sophisticate range-effective words
6				Includes effective choice of words and word forms
5	Develops a position on a topic or argument with well-chosen examples and reasons	A well-organized structure with a progression of ideas, linking ideas to supporting points from start to finish	Shows a control of language, with strong grammar, mechanics, and usage-yet may have a few minor errors	Adequate range
				Use of appropriate vocabulary
				Includes few misuse of vocabularies, word forms
4	Develop a position on a topic or argument with relevant examples and reasons	Organized with some progression of ideas, linking ideas and supporting points with some consistency	Shows control of standard English but contains some flaws	Selection of words is quite precise
4			Shows control of standard English but contains some flaws	Good vocabulary. Generally good response
3	Develops a vague or limited position on a topic or argument with few examples or reasons of questionable importance	Poorly organized with unclear links between ideas and supporting points	Shows some lack of control in grammar, mechanics and usage, containing occasional major flaws with more frequent minor errors	Selection of words in less precise
3				No attempt to vary expression
2	Ideas on a topic or argument are unclear or seriously limited	Disorganized and provides few, if any, relevant links between ideas and examples	Shows a lack of control in grammar, mechanics, and usage, containing numerous repeated errors	Relies on basic vocabulary
2				Generally understood repeated use of basic words
1	Provides little evidence of the ability to develop a position in response to a topic or argument	No organization or logic, containing irrelevant details and examples with little to no distinction between the two	Shows a complete lack of control in grammar, mechanics, and usage, making the essay unreadable and incomprehensible	Vocabulary is very limited, and simple words are used incorrectly, which leads to a lack of communication
0	Completely off topic, or not written in English	Entire lack of structure, blank or not written in English	Blank response, not written in English, or no regard for English grammar, mechanics and usage	Blank response, not written in English, or use words that do not convey meaning

Appendix B: Models

[A model text 1]

Smoking negatively affects health. It can even cause deadly diseases like cancer. Many countries have already banned smoking in public places. In my opinion, other countries should follow suit and ban it.

There are several benefits to banning smoking in public places. A smoking ban will definitely improve the quality of the air we breathe. Cigarette smoke contains cancer-causing chemicals. In addition to cancer, smoking causes several other health problems. In fact, studies have shown a tremendous rise in the occurrence of lung cancer among people who smoke regularly. Some studies have also shown that people who smoke more than three cigarettes a day have increased chances of developing cancer. Smoking may also cause other problems like heart attack, asthma, and respiratory illnesses.

The biggest problem with smoking is that exposure to secondhand smoke, which is the smoke exhaled by smokers, also negatively affects health. Non-smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke can increase their risk of developing heart disease, lung cancer, or respiratory diseases. It is particularly harmful for young children and pregnant women. If people are allowed to smoke in crowded public places like railway stations or bus stands, its adverse effects will have to be borne by all people standing next to the smoker. Banning smoking in public venues is the only way to protect non-smokers from the dangerous chemicals in secondhand smoke.

Another serious problem that smoking causes is pollution. Smoking not only aggravates pollution but it also causes the depletion of the ozone layer which protects us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.

In conclusion, I personally believe that all governments should ban smoking in public places because smoking plays a significant role in damaging our health and our environment. This might cause some inconvenience to chain smokers, but ultimately, this ban will benefit them as well.

[A model text 2]

Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places, while others oppose such a ban. Although both sides have put forth rationales to support their viewpoints, I strongly believe that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.

Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that “passive” or “secondhand” smokers, people who are exposed to the smoke exhaled by the people smoking, have the choice to avoid the harmful effects of smoking. They can simply choose not to visit places where smoking is permitted. Moreover, opponents of a smoking ban believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business, as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue that it is a matter of free will; since smoking is not against the law, individuals should have the freedom to smoke where they wish.

Despite the various reasons why some people are against prohibiting smoking in public places, there are more convincing arguments in favor of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health. Given that non-smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke inhale many of the same toxins as smokers, smoking can cause serious illnesses such as heart disease, lung cancer, and asthma for both smokers and nonsmokers alike. It is simply not fair for nonsmokers to have to suffer these consequences. Even though some people argue that nonsmokers can choose not to visit places where smoking is permitted, it is unfair to impose this obligation on nonsmokers and restrict the places that they can visit. Moreover, although some people worry that smoking will drive pubs and restaurants out of business, I think there are many ways that pubs and restaurants could adapt to a smoking ban without going out of business. For example, they can allow restricted smoking areas. In any case, people’s health is far more important than business.

In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.

References

Alptekin, Cem & Gülcan Erçetin. 2010. The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in Reading 33. 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01412.x.Search in Google Scholar

Ando, Juko, Nobuyoshi Fukunaga, Junko Kurahachi, Takeshi Suto, Takashi Nakano & Masaharu Kage. 1992. A comparative study on two EFL teaching methods: The communicative and the grammatical approach. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology 40. 247–256. https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep1953.40.3_247.Search in Google Scholar

Baddeley, Alan. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4. 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2.Search in Google Scholar

Baddeley, Alan. 2003. Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders 36. 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9924(03)00019-4.Search in Google Scholar

Baddeley, Alan & Graham Hitch. 1974. Working memory. In Gorden H. Bower (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 47–89. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, John & Neomy Storch. 2016. Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783095056Search in Google Scholar

Cánovas Guirao, Josefa, Julio Roca de Larios & Yvette Coyle. 2015. The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System 52(1). 63–77.10.1016/j.system.2015.04.002Search in Google Scholar

Coyle, Yvette, Josefa Cánovas Guirao & Julio Roca de Larios. 2018. Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing 42. 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.09.002.Search in Google Scholar

Coyle, Yvette & Julio Roca de Larios. 2014. Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second. Language Acquisition 36. 451–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000612.Search in Google Scholar

Coyle, Yvette & Julio Roca de Larios. 2020. Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System 95. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102374.Search in Google Scholar

Daneman, Meredyth & Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19. 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6.Search in Google Scholar

DiVesta, Francis & Susan G. Gray. 1972. Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology 63. 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032243.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2005. At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27. 305–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226310505014x.Search in Google Scholar

Esteban, Noelia Martínez & Julio Roca de Larios. 2010. The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies 10(2). 143–170. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119241.Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, Dana R. 2010. Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32. 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990490.Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, María del Pilar & Udane Loidi Labandibar. 2017. The use of models as written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 37. 110–127.10.1017/S0267190517000071Search in Google Scholar

Gathercole, Susan E. & Tracy P. Alloway. 2008. Working memory and learning: A practical guide for teachers. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Hanaoka, Osamu. 2007. Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research 11(4). 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807080963.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, EunYoung. 2010. Effects of output and note-taking on noticing and interlanguage development. Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics 10(2). 19–36.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, EunYoung. 2020. Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System 89. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102196.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, EunYoung & Zhaohong Han. 2015. The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal 99(1). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, EunYoung & Zhaohong Han. 2021. Written corrective feedback: Short-term and long-term effects on language learning. In Rosa Manchón & Charlene Polio (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing, 213–225. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780429199691-23Search in Google Scholar

Kellogg, Ronald. 1996. A model of working memory in writing. In Michael Levy & Sarah Ransdell (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, 57–71. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Kormos, Judit. 2012. The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(4). 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003.Search in Google Scholar

Kormos, Judit & Anna Sáfár. 2008. Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11(2). 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728908003416.Search in Google Scholar

Lázaro-Ibarrola, Amparo. 2023. Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: Noticing, incorporations, and draft quality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61(2). 329–359. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2020-0160.Search in Google Scholar

Leeser, Michael 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.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng & Saeed Roshan. 2019. The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 45. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003.Search in Google Scholar

Linck, Jared A., Peter Osthus, Joel T. Koeth & Michael F. Bunting. 2014. Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 21. 861–883. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2.Search in Google Scholar

Luquin, María & María del Pilar García Mayo. 2021. Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System 98. 102465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102465.Search in Google Scholar

Mackey, Alison, Jenefer Philp, Takako Egi, Akiko Fujii & Tatsumi Tatsumi. 2002. Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning, 181–209. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.2.12macSearch in Google Scholar

Masoura, Elvira V. & Susan E. Gathercole. 1999. Phonological short-term memory and foreign language learning. International Journal of Psychology 34. 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075999399738.Search in Google Scholar

Newport, Elissa L. 1990. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 14(1). 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2.Search in Google Scholar

Oakhill, Jane & Alan Garnham. 2005. Immediate activation of stereotypical gender information. Memory & Cognition 33. 972–983.10.3758/BF03193206Search in Google Scholar

Plonsky, Luke & Fredrick L. Oswald. 2014. How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64. 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079.Search in Google Scholar

Qin, Jingjing & Erkan Karabacak. 2010. The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System 38(3). 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012.Search in Google Scholar

Révész, Andrea. 2012. Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning 62(1). 93–132.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00690.xSearch in Google Scholar

Shin, Jihye. 2020. A meta-analysis of the relationship between working memory and second language reading comprehension: Does task type matter? Applied Psycholinguistics 41(4). 873–900. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716420000272.Search in Google Scholar

Speciale, Giovanna, Nick C. Ellis & Tracey Bywater. 2004. Phonological sequence learning and short-term store capacity determine second language vocabulary acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 25. 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716404001146.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merill. 2000. The output hypotheses and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In James P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tagliaferri, Bruno. 2005. Paradigm: Perception Research Systems, Inc. [Software]. Available online at: http://www.perceptionresearchsystems.com.Search in Google Scholar

Waters, Gloria & David Caplan. 1996. The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49. 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249896392801.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Luxin & Ling Zhang. 2010. Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research 14. 464–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375369.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-11-30

Accepted: 2022-05-17

Published Online: 2022-05-31

Published in Print: 2023-11-27

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0207

Keywords for this article

L2 writing; models; working memory capacity; written corrective feedback