Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:50:20.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working memory and language aptitude in relation to listening strategy instruction in an instructed SLA context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Saime Kara Duman ,
Şebnem Yalçın  and
Gülcan Erçetin
Saime Kara Duman
Affiliation:
Yildiz Technical University
Şebnem Yalçın*
Affiliation:
Boğaziçi University
Gülcan Erçetin
Affiliation:
Boğaziçi University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: sebnem.yalcin@boun.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present small-scale study explores whether working memory (WM) and language aptitude (LA) explain any variance in L2 listening comprehension beyond baseline listening ability and explicit strategy-based listening instruction in an instructed EFL setting at the tertiary level. In a pretest/posttest non-randomized group design, the experimental group (N = 19) received explicit strategy-based listening instruction for 12 hours while the control group (N = 17) followed their regular L2 listening course syllabus. L2 listening comprehension was measured with an L2 academic listening comprehension test. WM measures (Foster et al., 2015) included an operation span task (OST), a symmetry span task (SST), and a rotation span task (RST). LA was assessed with LLAMA (Meara, 2005). The findings revealed the effectiveness of strategy-based intervention for L2 listening comprehension. A hierarchical regression analysis indicated that baseline listening scores explained about 52% of the variance in the post-listening scores, while listening strategy instruction explained an additional 16% of the variance. On the other hand, WM and LA did not explain any variance in listening comprehension scores, suggesting that the two individual learner differences in the present study are not significant predictors of L2 listening comprehension.

Keywords

explicit strategy instructionworking memoryaptitudeL2 listening
Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 41 , March 2021 , pp. 108 - 117
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2011). Effects of working memory capacity and content familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunfaut, T., & Révész, A. (2015). The role of task and listener characteristics in second language listening. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation: Education Committee, Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, A. (2000). Discovering Statistics using SPSS for windows. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43(2), 226–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gu., S., & Wang, T. (2007). Study on the relationship between working memory and EFL listening comprehension. CELEA Journal, 30, 46–56.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism, 11(2), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 801–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2019). Six decades of language aptitude research: A comprehensive and critical review. In Wen, Z. E., Skehan, P., Biedroń, A., Li, S., & Sparks, R. L. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research, and practice. (pp. 78–96). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masrai, A. (2020). Exploring the impact of individual differences in aural vocabulary knowledge, written vocabulary knowledge and working memory capacity on explaining L2 learners’ listening comprehension. Applied Linguistics Review, 11(3), 423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual (Tech. Rep.). Lognostics.Google Scholar
Nagata, H., Aline, D., & Ellis, R. (1999). Modified input, language aptitude and the acquisition of word meanings. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Learning a Second Language Through Interaction, 133–149. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language learning, 61, 993–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 159–180). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies. Language learner strategies, 30, 29–45.Google Scholar
Sáfár, A., & Kormos, J. (2008). Revisiting problems with foreign language aptitude. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(2), 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319–353). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to Learn or Learning to Listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. C. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65, 390–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. C. (2018). Learner variables important for success in L2 listening comprehension in French immersion classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar