Task modality and working memory: oral production improvement through a text-reconstruction task across various proficiency levels in L2
-
Natalia Sletova
Abstract
This study investigates the potential of written tasks to enhance L2 oral production across various levels of proficiency and examines relationships between individual Working Memory (WM) capacity, measured in both native and target languages, and learners’ performance in written and spoken tasks. Sixty-four university L2 learners of Russian (Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced) participated in the study. They were tasked with reconstructing a text and completing a ‘notice the gap’ activity in writing and orally. Novice and Intermediate learners exhibited enhanced speaking accuracy only when engaging with texts through writing. Russian (L2) WM showed correlations with lexical diversity in both written and spoken tasks. However, syntactic complexity displayed a significant correlation with L2 WM solely in spoken tasks, while semantic accuracy suggested a relationship with L2 WM only in the written form of recall. Based on these findings, explanations and suggestions for future research are offered.
Funding source: Alumni Grant for Graduate Research and Scholarship, The Ohio State University
Acknowledgments
The author would like to express her deepest gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback and suggestions on earlier draft of this paper. The study was supported by Alumni Grant for Graduate Research and Scholarship from the Ohio State University, USA.
-
Research ethics: All subjects participated voluntarily but received a $25 compensation for participation. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) research performed by Ohio State investigators (register number 2021E1198).
-
Author contributions: The author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: The author states no conflicts of interest.
-
Research funding: Alumni Grant for Graduate Research and Scholarship, The Ohio State University, $1750 – the author paid human subjects for participation.
-
Data availability: Available upon request.
Appendix A
Beginner Text
Э́то Кири́лл. Его́ жена́ - полице́йский. Она́ мно́го рабо́тает. Она́ ча́сто рабо́тает но́чью. Ве́чером она́ идёт на рабо́ту, а у́тром идёт домо́й спать. Днём она́ спит, ве́чером за́втракает, но́чью опя́ть идёт на рабо́ту. Э́то не то́лько тру́дная, но и о́чень опа́сная рабо́та. Все хулига́ны и банди́ты зна́ют его жену́. Она́ о́чень хоро́ший полице́йский, поэ́тому они́ её не лю́бят.
Кири́лл адвока́т. Он встаём у́тром, за́втракает, идёт на рабо́ту. Иногда́ он встреча́ет на рабо́те свою́ жену́. Э́то быва́ет о́чень ре́дко.
Ко́нчено, все хулига́ны и банди́ты зна́ют его́. Он о́чень хоро́ший адвока́т, поэ́тому все хулига́ны и банди́ты его́ лю́бят. Он хорошо́ их защища́ет, потому́ что э́то его́ рабо́та. Но Кири́лл их не лю́бит, потому́ что они́ не лю́бят его́ жену́. А Кири́лл её о́чень лю́бит.
[This is Kirill. His wife is a policeman. She works a lot. She often works at night. She goes to work in the evening, and she goes home to sleep in the morning. She sleeps during the day, she has breakfast in the evening, she goes to work again at night. Her work is not only difficult, but also very dangerous. All hooligans and bandits know my wife. She is a very good policeman, so they don’t like her.
Kirill is an advocate. He gets up in the morning, has breakfast, goes to work. Sometimes he meets his wife at work. This happens very rarely.
Of course, all the hooligans and bandits know him. He is a very good lawyer, so all hooligans and bandits love him. He defends them well because it is his job. But Kirill does not like them, because they do not like his wife. And Kirill loves her very much].
Number of words = 122; MLperT/AS = 6.78; T/√2W = 3.71.
Intermediate text
Семья́ Смирно́вых жи́ла на да́че уже́ три неде́ли. Пого́да была́ прекра́сная, дожде́й почти́ не́ было. Жена́ Ле́на и де́ти ка́ждое у́тро ходи́ли купа́ться и загора́ть. Вечера́ бы́ли тёплые и ти́хие. Ле́на и её сосе́дки пи́ли чай на терра́се, обсужда́ли но́вости и смея́лись. Иногда́ они́ игра́ли в волейбо́л. Им на да́че бы́ло о́чень хорошо́.
Муж Алексе́й рабо́тал в изве́стной компью́терной фи́рме. Рабо́ты у него́ бы́ло мно́го, поэт́ ому он прие́хал на да́чу с компью́тером. Алексе́й встава́л по́здно, пил чай оди́н, и сади́лся за компью́ тер рабо́тать. Иногда́ днём Алексе́й смотре́л телеви́зор. Ему́ осо́бенно нра́вились спорти́вные програ́ммы и америка́нские фи́льмы. По́сле у́жина Алексе́й сно́ва рабо́тал, а пото́м до́лго спал как счастли́вый челове́к, у кото́рого о́тпуск. В о́бщем, ему́ на да́че то́же бы́ло хорошо́.
[The Smirnov family had been living at the dacha for three weeks already. The weather was fine, there was almost no rain. Wife Lena and children went swimming and sunbathing every morning. Evenings were warm and quiet. Lena and her neighbors were drinking tea on the terrace, discussing the news and laughing. Sometimes they played volleyball. They were very happy at the dacha.
Husband Alexei worked for a well-known computer company. He had a lot of work, so he came to the dacha with a computer. Alexey got up late, drank tea alone, and sat down at the computer to work. Sometimes during the day Alexei watched TV. He especially liked sports programs and American films. After dinner, Alexei worked again, and then slept for a long time, like a happy man who had a vacation. All in all, he was also happy at the dacha.]
Number of words = 121; MLperT/AS = 8.64; T/√2W = 6.11.
Advanced text
В це́нтре Москвы́, недалеко́ от ста́нции метро́ “Лубя́нка” стои́т па́мятник: челове́к в стари́нной оде́жде де́ржит в руке́ лист бу́дущей кни́ги. Э́то па́мятник Ива́ну Фёдорову. Его́ поста́вили в нача́ле двадца́того ве́ка. Три́дцать лет вся страна́ собира́ла де́ньги на него́. Кто же тако́й Ива́н Фёдоров и почему́ ему́ поста́вили па́мятник в це́нтре ру́сской столи́ цы?
В пятна́дцатом ве́ке в Евро́пе напеча́тали пе́рвую кни́гу. Так началась но́вая э́ра. Одна́ко в Росси́и ещё сто лет по́сле э́того не уме́ли печа́тать кни́ги. Их перепи́сывали, и э́то был о́чень до́лгий проце́сс. Кро́ме того́, кни́ги бы́ли о́чень дороги́е и в них бы́ло мно́го оши́бок. То́лько в шестна́дцатом ве́ке появи́лась пе́рвая печа́тная кни́га в Росси́и. Её напеча́тал Ива́н Фёдоров на печа́тном станке́, кото́рый он сде́лал сам.
[In the center of Moscow, not far from the Lubyanka metro station, there is a monument: a man in ancient clothes holds a sheet of a future book in his hand. This is a monument to Ivan Fedorov. It was placed at the beginning of the twentieth century. For thirty years, the whole country collected money for it. Who is Ivan Fedorov and why was his monument built in the center of the Russian capital?
In the fifteenth century, the first book was printed in Europe. It became the beginning of a new era. However, in Russia, they did not know how to print books for another hundred years. Books were rewritten, and it was a very long process. In addition, the books were very expensive, and they had many mistakes. Only in the sixteenth century, the first printed book appeared in Russia. It was printed by Ivan Fedorov on a printing press, which he made himself.].
Number of words = 118; MLperT/AS = 9.83; T/√2W = 6.99.
Appendix B
Pre-Study Questionnaire
Number (given by researcher): ______________
Date: _________
What is your age? _____
When did you begin studying Russian?
How many years have you been studying Russian? Have you been studying it continuously? Please mention any breaks in your study.
Have you studied abroad for Russian? For how long, in what program and in what city? How long ago was it?
What grades have you received in your Russian courses at OSU and elsewhere? Please list each course and the corresponding letter grade.
How much time, on average, do you devote to studying Russian every week?
What other foreign languages have you studied and for how long?
Do you have any other exposure to Russian on a regular basis? (i.e., family, friends, TV, etc.) If yes, please mention how often you interact with these people or things.
What aspects of Russian are the most difficult for you?
What strategies do you use to learn new vocabulary words?
Do you expect any benefits from knowing Russian for your future professional career?
Do you think your writing is better than your speaking in Russian or vice versa?
References
Adams, Rebecca. 2003. L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for L2 development. Language Teaching Research 7(3). 347–376. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803LR127OA.Suche in Google Scholar
Awwad, Ali & Parvaneh Tavakoli. 2022. Task complexity, language proficiency and working memory: Interaction effects on second language speech performance. IRAL 60(2). 169–196.10.1515/iral-2018-0378Suche in Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan. 2003. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 4. 829–849. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201.Suche in Google Scholar
Cho, Misook. 2018. Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System 72. 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010.Suche in Google Scholar
Chubarova, Olga. 2008. Shkatulochka. Moscow: Moscow.Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Suche in Google Scholar
Daneman, Meredyth. 1991. Working memory as a predictor of verbal fluency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20. 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01067637.Suche in Google Scholar
Daneman, Meredyth & Patricia A. Carpetner. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19(4). 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6.Suche in Google Scholar
de Bot, Kees & Robert Shreuder. 1993. Word production and the bilingual lexicon. In Robert Schreuder & Bert Weltens (eds.), The bilingual lexicon, 191–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/sibil.6.10botSuche in Google Scholar
de Groot, Annete. 2010. Bilingualism and the brain. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod & Fangyuan Yuan. 2005. The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written performance. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task-performance in second language, 167–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.10.1075/lllt.11.11ellSuche in Google Scholar
Foster, Paul, Alison Tonkyn & Graham Wigglesworth. 2000. Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reason. Applied Linguistics 21(3). 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354.Suche in Google Scholar
Grabowski, Joachim. 2007. The writing superiority effect in the verbal recall of knowledge: Sources and determinants. In Gert Rijlaarsdam, Mark Torrance & David Galbraith (eds.), Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications. Amsterdam: Elseiver.10.1163/9781849508223_012Suche in Google Scholar
Hunt, KelloggW. 1965. Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Suche in Google Scholar
Hunt, KelloggW. 1970. Recent measures in syntactic development. In Mark Lester (ed.), Readings in applied tranformation grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Suche in Google Scholar
Juffs, Alan & Michael Hurrington. 2011. Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching 44(2). 137–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444810000509.Suche in Google Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald. 1996. A model of working memory in writing. In C. Michael Levy & Sarah Ransdell (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, 57–71. Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald. 2001. Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American Journal of Psychology 114. 175–191. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423513.Suche in Google Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald. 2007. Are written and spoken recall of text equivalent? American Journal of Phsycology 120(3). 415–428. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445412.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Youjin & Nicole Tracy-Ventura. 2013. The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System 41(4). 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Kormos, Judit. 2006. Speech production and second language acquisition. New York and London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Suche in Google Scholar
Kormos, Judit. 2014. Differences across modalities of performance. In Heidi Byrnes & Rosa Manchón (eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing, 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.7.08korSuche in Google Scholar
Kormos, Judit & András Trebits. 2011. Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance, 267–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.2.17ch10Suche in Google Scholar
Kormos, Judit & Anna Trebits. 2012. The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning 62(2). 439–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder. 2011. Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance, 91–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4Suche in Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Li, Shaofeng. 2023. Working memory and second language writing: A systematic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 45(3). 647–679. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263123000189.Suche in Google Scholar
Ögeyik, Muhlise Cosgun. 2017. The comparative effectiveness of noticing in language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 56(4). 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0049.Suche in Google Scholar
Olsthoorn, Nomi M., Sible Andringa & Jan H. Hulstijn. 2012. Visual and auditory digit-span performance in native and non-native speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 18(6). 663–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912466314.Suche in Google Scholar
Park, Hae In, Megan Solon, Marzieh Dehghan-Chaleshtori & Hessameddin Ghanbar. 2022. Proficiency reporting practices in research on second language acquisition: Have we made any progress? Language Learning 72(1). 198–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12475.Suche in Google Scholar
Patanasorn, Chatwara. 2010. Effects of procedural content and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Payne, Scott & Brenda Ross. 2005. Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning and Technology 9. 35–54.Suche in Google Scholar
Payne, Scott & Paul Whitney. 2002. Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal 20. 7–32.10.1558/cj.v20i1.7-32Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2007. Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics 45. 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009.Suche in Google Scholar
Sletova, Natalia. 2023. L2 writing as a scaffold for L2 speaking accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 33(2). 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12458.Suche in Google Scholar
Sletova, Natalia & Ludmila Isurin. 2023. Relationship between written and spoken text recall in L2. Foreign Language Annals 56(1). 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12642.Suche in Google Scholar
Son, Minjin. 2022. The role of modality and working memory capacity in L2 production. Language Teaching Research. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221135227.Suche in Google Scholar
Tavakoli, Parvaneh & Clare Wright. 2020. Introduction. In Second language speech fluency: From research to practice, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108589109.001Suche in Google Scholar
Turner, Marilyn L. & Randall W. Engle. 1989. Is woking memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language 28(2). 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5.Suche in Google Scholar
VanPatten, Bill. 2004. Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Suche in Google Scholar
VanPatten, Bill & Megan Smith. 2022. Explicit and implicit learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Vasylets, Olena & Javier Marin. 2021. The effects of working memory and L2 proficiency on L2 writing. Journal of second language writing 52. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100786.Suche in Google Scholar
Wechsler, David. 1997. WAIS-III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Suche in Google Scholar
Willams, Jessics. 2008. The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In Diane Belcher & Alan Hilvera (eds.), The oral literature connections: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions, 10–25. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim. 1998. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Suche in Google Scholar
Zalbidea, Janire. 2017. ‘One task fits all’? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal 101. 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12389.Suche in Google Scholar
Zalbidea, Janire. 2021. On the scope of output in SLA: Task modality, salience, L2 grammar noticing, and development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43. 50–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263120000261.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
