Relationship between attentional processing of input and working Bimali Indrarathne memory: an eye- Judit Kormos tracking study Lancaster University
Background Attention Attention is “ taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought ” (James, 1890, p. 403-404) Consciousness Understanding of one’s experiences (Max Velmans, 2009; Nagel, 1974)
Background Attention with WM consciousness Attention without consciousness Koch and Tsuchiya (2006)
Background comprehension of L2 input Working directing learners’ memory & attention to the relevant features of the input input processing processing and encoding this perceived input into long-term memory
Background WM model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974-2015) coordinating the subsidiary switching attention memory system Central controlling encoding retrieval strategies Executive Inhibition Monitoring & updating Phonological Visuospatial Episodic buffer loop sketchpad temporary store temporary store temporary store combine articulatory visual and spatial information from information information different sections
Background Existing research on WM – grammar learning link Working Learning Outcome Relationship with memory conditions measures WM components components assessed ? Ellis & Sinclair (1996) PSTM Implicit Explicit knowledge Significant Implicit Implicit knowledge Significant ? Williams & Lovatt (2003) PSTM Implicit Explicit knowledge Significant Martin & Ellis (2012) PSTM Implicit Explicit knowledge Significant Grey et al. (2015) PSTM Implicit Implicit knowledge Non-significant ? Implicit Explicit knowledge Non-significant Santamaria and PSTM Explicit Explicit Significant Sunderman (2015) Robinson (2005) PSTM Explicit Explicit Significant ? Implicit Implicit Non-significant Tagarelli, Borges Mota and PSTM Explicit Implicit Non-significant Rebuschat (2011, 2015) Complex WM Implicit Implicit Non-significant
Background OVERVIEW Explicit Implicit knowledge knowledge Explicit condition √ x Implicit condition ? ?
Research design Control group A W O enhanced + enhanced + enhanced + R instructions instructions instructions K I N B P G P O R enhanced + PPT- explicit enhanced + enhanced + S M E instructions explanation instructions instructions T E T T M E E O S C S R T T Y enhanced only enhanced only enhanced only T E S D T S unenhanced unenhanced unenhanced
Aims of the study To investigate.... How the functioning of WM including both phonological loop and central executive functions is related to the change in knowledge of the target grammatical construction ‘causative had’ in different input conditions How the functioning of the WM including both phonological loop and central executive functions is related to the attention paid to target items
Methodology Participants 100 undergraduates at a Sri Lankan university Age between 18-22 First language Sinhala speakers Had been learning English as an L2 B1/low B2 level of proficiency 20 in a group
Methodology Input Three stories Controlled for length, word frequency Target construction – causative ‘had’ – E.g. I had my car repaired (BNC) 7 examples in each story – 21 in total Every other day for one week (3 times)
Methodology Eye-tracking Tobii X2-60 portable eye tracker fixed to a laptop Slides were prepared on PowerPoint first: 24- point, double-spaced Calibri Areas of Interest (AOI) - example of the target structure All words of the AOI placed in one line
Methodology Pre and post tests Sentence Reconstruction items (6/20) – written (explicit/implicit knowledge) Sarah got someone to print invitation cards for her party. Sarah had ..................................... Timed Grammaticality Judgement items (10/40) – listening (implicit knowledge) My dad had his lunch delivered to his office yesterday. Correct/Incorrect Free writing task Examples from BNC Controlled for length
Methodology WM tests Forward digit-span Phonological loop Plus-minus task Switching Keep-track task Functions of the CE Updating Stroop task inhibition
Methodology Data analysis Eye-tracking data Total fixation duration on AOIs (TFD) Difference between observed and expected total fixation duration – as a proportion of the whole page based on the number of syllables ( ΔOE ) WM test data Pre/post test data
Results Preliminary analyses Groups comparable in terms of WM abilities Correlational analysis of WM test scores Factor analysis – composite score for Keep-track, Stroop and Digit-span Keep- Plus- Stroop track Minus Digit span .818 ** .112 -.530 ** Keep-track .119 -.455 ** Plus-Minus -.069
Results Research question 1 How is the functioning of WM including both phonological loop and central executive functions related to the change in knowledge of the target grammatical construction ‘causative had’ in different input conditions?
Results Correlational analysis Whole sample SR gain GJ gain score score Digit Spearman rho .570* .648* Span p <.001 <.001 Keep Spearman rho .519* .576* Track p <.001 <.001 Stroop Spearman rho -.568* -.547* p <.001 <.001
Results Composite WM score vs SR gain score – Spearman rho
Results Composite WM score vs GJ gain score – Spearman rho
Results Influence of WM across groups (SR) – multiregression analysis interaction effect between the treatment condition and the composite Instruction to WM score (Wald χ 2 = pay attention 23.089, p <.001) the unenhanced group statistically different from enhanced+instructions ( β =1.105, p <.001) and the enhanced+instructions+explanation group ( β =.973, p <.001).
Results Influence of WM across groups (GJ) – multiregression analysis
Results Research question 2 How the functioning of the WM including both phonological loop and central executive functions is related to the attention paid to target items?
Results Correlational analysis Digit Keep Stroop Span track Mean Spearman .250 .279 -.307* TFD rho p .097 .064 .040 Mean Spearman .327* .394* -.310* ΔOE rho p .028 .007 .038
Results Composite WM score vs TFD & D OE – Spearman rho
Results Influence of WM across groups (TFD) – multiregression analysis interaction effect (Wald χ 2 = 34.49, p <.001) Instruction to pay attention unenhanced group statistically different from enhanced+ instructions ( β =.274, p =.042) and enhanced+ instructions+ explanation groups ( β =.723, p <.001).
Results Influence of WM across groups ( D OE) – multiregression analysis Interaction effect Wald χ 2 = 29.178, p Instruction to <.001 pay attention unenhanced group statistically different from enhanced+ instructions ( β =.395, p =.001 ) and enhanced+ instructions+ explanation groups ( β =.608, p <.001).
Discussion √ Attention regulation Linck, Osthus, Koeth and Bunting (2013) Explicit input/ Explicit √ knowledge Robinson (2005) Phonological loop Explicit input/ Implicit √ + knowledge Central Executive Implicit input/ Implicit √ knowledge Ahmadian (2015) Implicit input/ Explicit √ knowledge Ellis & Sinclair (1996)
Thank you
Recommend
More recommend
