Roles of working memory,syllogistic inferencing ability,and linguistic knowledge on second language listening comprehension for passages of different lengths

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of working memory capacity (WMC), first language (L1) syllogistic inferencing ability, and second-language (L2) linguistic knowledge on L2 listening comprehension for passages of different lengths. Participants were 193 Korean ninth-grade learners of English. A path analysis was used to examine multivariate relationships among variables. Findings indicated that L2 linguistic knowledge was pivotal in explaining L2 listening comprehension for passages of different lengths. Findings also indicated that over and above L2 linguistic knowledge, greater WMC facilitated comprehending longer L2 listening passages, while better L1 syllogistic inferencing ability facilitated comprehending shorter L2 listening passages. WMC may help form more information-dense representations of longer passages, while L1 syllogistic inferencing ability may help build integrated propositional representations of shorter passages. In addition, greater WMC had indirect impacts on L2 listening comprehension through L1 syllogistic inferencing ability and L2 linguistic knowledge, which suggests that WMC may lead to better L2 listening comprehension when learners have greater L2 knowledge or better L1 syllogistic inferencing ability. Overall, first, this study suggests a pivotal role for L2 linguistic knowledge in L2 listening comprehension and, second, roles for WMC and L1 syllogistic inferencing, which function differently depending on passage length.

Keywords

Linguistic knowledge listening comprehension passage length syllogistic inferencing working memory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alderson

J. C.

Kremmel

(2013). Re-examining the content validation of a grammar test: The (im)possibility of distinguishing vocabulary and structural knowledge. Language Testing, 30(4), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213489568

Aloe

A. M.

Becker

B. J.

(2012). An effect size for regression predictors in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 37(2), 278–297. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998610396901

Alwin

D. F.

Hauser

R. M.

(1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094445

Andringa

Olsthoorn

van Beuningen

Schoonen

Hulstijn

(2012). Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62, 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00706.x

Bachman

L. F.

Palmer

A. S.

(1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Bachman

L. F.

Palmer

A. S.

(2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.

Baddeley

A. D.

(2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4

Bara

B. G.

Bucciarelli

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

(1995). Development of syllogistic reasoning. The American Journal of Psychology, 108, 157–193. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423127

Becker

(2016). L2 students’ performance on listening comprehension items targeting local and global information. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.07.004

10.

Beers

(2003). When kids can’t read: What teachers can do. Heinemann.

11.

Bloomfield

Wayland

S. C.

Rhoades

Blodgett

Linck

Ross

(2010). What makes listening difficult? Factors affecting second language listening comprehension. University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA550176.pdf

12.

Brunfaut

(2016). Assessing listening. In Tsagari

Banerjee

(Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 97–112). De Gruyter Mouton.

13.

Brunfaut

Révész

(2015). The role of task and listener characteristics in second language listening. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.168

14.

Buck

(2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press.

15.

Carrell

P. L.

Dunkel

P. A.

Mollaun

(2002). The effects of notetaking, lecture length and topic on the listening component of the TOEFL 2000 (TOEFL Monograph Series No. MS-23). Educational Testing Service.

16.

Carrell

P. L.

Dunkel

P. A.

Mollaun

(2004). The effects of notetaking, lecture length, and topic on a computer-based test of ESL listening comprehension. Applied Language Learning, 14(1), 83–105. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/161450/

17.

Cattell

R. B

. (1943). The measurement of adult intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 40, 153–193.

18.

Chai

W. J.

Abd Hamid

A. I.

Abdullah

J. M.

(2018). Working memory from the psychological and neurosciences perspectives: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 401. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00401

19.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Council of Europe (2001). Common european framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.

21.

Cummins

(1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/1169960

22.

Field

(2013). Cognitive validity. In Geranpayeh

Taylor

(Eds.), Examining listening: Research and practice in assessing second language listening (pp. 77–151). MPG Books Group.

23.

Flowerdew

Miller

(2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

24.

Fox

(2016). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models (3rd ed.). SAGE.

25.

Gathercole

S. E.

Pickering

S. J.

Ambridge

Wearing

(2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177

26.

George

Mallery

(2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Allyn & Bacon.

27.

Gough

P. B.

Tunmer

W. E.

(1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

28.

Graesser

A. C.

Singer

Trabasso

(1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371

29.

Graesser

A. C.

Wiemer-Hastings

(2001). Constructing inferences and relations during text comprehension. In Sanders

T. J. M.

Schilperoord

Spooren

(Eds.), Text representation—Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 249–271). John Benjamins.

30.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.

31.

Henning

(1990). A study of the effects of variation of short-term memory load, reading response length, and processing hierarchy on TOEFL listening comprehension item performance (TOEFL Research Reports RR-33). Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1990.tb01354.x

32.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

33.

Hui

Godfroid

(2021). Testing the role of processing speed and automaticity in second language listening. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(5), 1089–1115. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/35VFX

34.

Kahane

(1992). Logic and contemporary rhetoric. Wadsworth.

35.

Kass

R. E.

Raftery

A. E.

(1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

36.

Khemlani

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

(2012). Theories of the syllogism: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(3), 427–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026841

37.

Kim

Payant

Pearson

(2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(3), 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000618

38.

Kim

Y. S. G.

Pilcher

(2016). What is listening comprehension and what does it take to improve listening comprehension? In Schiff

Joshi

(Eds.), Handbook of interventions in learning disabilities (pp. 159–173). Springer.

39.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). The mediation myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(4), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349

40.

Korkmaz

Goksuluk

Zararsiz

(2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-031

41.

Kormos

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

42.

Kostin

(2004). Exploring item characteristics that are related to the difficulty of TOEFL dialogue items (TOEFL Research Report RR-79). Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2004.tb01938.x

43.

Kunnan

A. J.

(2018). Evaluating language assessments. Routledge.

44.

Linck

J. A.

Osthus

Koeth

J. T.

Bunting

M. F.

(2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2

45.

Mardia

K. V.

(1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334770

46.

Mathôt

Schreij

Theeuwes

(2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7

47.

Mecartty

(2000). Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening comprehension by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language Learning, 11, 323–348.

48.

Messick

(1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018002005

49.

Michel

Kormos

Brunfaut

Ratajczak

(2019). The role of working memory in young second language learners’ written performances. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 31–45.

50.

Oakhill

Garnham

(1993). On theories of belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 46(1), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90023-O

51.

(2016). Comparative studies on the roles of linguistic knowledge and sentence processing speed in L2 listening and reading comprehension in an EFL tertiary setting. Reading Psychology, 37(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1049389

52.

Osaka

(1992). Language-independent working memory as measured by Japanese and English reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 287–289. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330466

53.

Papp

Rixon

(2018). Examining young learners: Research and practice in assessing the English of school-age learners. University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate/Cambridge University Press.

54.

Purpura

(2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge University Press.

55.

Read

(2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press.

56.

Ross

S. J.

(1997). Listener inference on a second language test. In Kasper

Kellerman

(Eds.), Advances in communication strategies research (pp. 216–237). Longman.

57.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

58.

Rost

(2011). Teaching and researching listening (2nd ed.). Longman.

59.

Satorra

Bentler

P. M.

(1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In von Eye

Clogg

C. C.

(Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). SAGE.

60.

Schneider

Eschman

Zuccolotto

(2002). E-prime: User’s guide. Psychology Software Incorporated.

61.

Segers

Verhoeven

(2016). How logical reasoning mediates the relation between lexical quality and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 29(4), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9613-9

62.

Shikishima

Yamagata

Hiraishi

Sugimoto

Murayama

Ando

(2011). A simple syllogism-solving test: Empirical findings and implications for g research. Intelligence, 39(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.01.002

63.

Shohamy

Inbar

(1991). Validation of listening comprehension tests: The effect of text and question type. Language Testing, 8(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229100800103

64.

Siddiqui

West

R. F.

Stanovich

K. E.

(1998). The influence of print exposure on syllogistic reasoning and knowledge of mental-state verbs. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0201_4

65.

Wolf

M. K.

Hauck

M. C.

Mollaun

Rybinski

Tumposky

Wang

(2015). TOEFL Junior® design framework (TOEFL Junior Research Report No. TOEFL JR-02). Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12058

66.

Stæhr

L. S.

(2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 577–607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990039

67.

Stanovich

K. E.

West

R. F.

(1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 127(2), 161–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.2.161

68.

Stanovich

K. E.

West

R. F

. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–726. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435

69.

Steinberg

. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005

70.

Taber

K. S.

(2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

71.

Vafaee

Suzuki

(2020). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary knowledge in second language listening ability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(2), 383–410. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000676

72.

Vandergrift

(2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40(3), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004338

73.

Vandergrift

Baker

(2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65(2), 390–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12105

74.

Wang

Treffers-Daller

(2017). Explaining listening comprehension among L2 learners of English: The contribution of general language proficiency, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness. System, 65, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.013

75.

Williams

J. N.

(2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gass

Mackey

(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). Routledge.

76.

Wright

(2015). Working memory and L2 development across the lifespan: A commentary. In Wen

Z. E.

Mota

M. B.

McNeill

(Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 285–298). Multilingual Matters.

77.

Yurgelun-Todd

. (2007). Emotional and cognitive changes during adolescence. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17(2), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2007.03.009

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.53 MB