The extent to which learners benefit from instruction may be largely dependent on their individual abilities. However, there is relatively little work on the interaction between instructional effectiveness in second language learning and learner individual factors. In this study, we investigated the relationship between instruction, individual differences in cognitive abilities (working memory and declarative memory), and second language vocabulary acquisition in the context of web-based intelligent computer assisted language learning (ICALL). To this end, 127 adult learners of English, predominantly advanced-level, German-speaking learners, read news texts on the web for about two weeks using an ICALL system under two instructional conditions: form-focused and meaning-focused instruction. Learners in the form-focused condition read and completed automatically-generated multiple-choice gaps where phrasal verbs appeared in the text, while learners in the meaning-focused condition simply read and did not complete any gaps. Mixed-effects regression analyses showed that working memory was associated with vocabulary acquisition and that this association depended on the instructional context, with working memory being predictive of learning only in the form-focused condition, suggesting an aptitude-treatment interaction. Furthermore, declarative memory abilities were related to learning only as measured by the Continuous Visual Memory Task, and the relationship was not moderated by instructional condition. Overall, the study contributes to accounting for variability in second language learning in general, as well as in instructional contexts supported by intelligent CALL.
AdamsE.J.NguyenA.T.CowanN. (2018). Theories of working memory: Differences in definition, degree of modularity, role of attention, and purpose. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49, 340–355.
2.
AikenL.S.WestS.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
AldersonJ.C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.
4.
AndoJ.FukunagaN.KurahachiJ. (1992). A comparative study on the two EFL teaching methods: The communicative and the grammatical approach. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 247–256.
5.
BaayenR.H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BaddeleyA.D. (2017). Modularity, working memory and language acquisition. Second Language Research, 33, 299–311.
7.
BaddeleyA.D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
8.
BaddeleyA.D.HitchG.J. (1974). Working memory. In BowerG.H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
9.
BaronR.M.KennyD.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
10.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
11.
BensonS.DeKeyserR.M. (2018). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 25April2018 (doi: 10.1177/1362168818770921).
12.
BiedrońA.PawlakM. (2016). The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case of cognitive factors and personality. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 395–422.
13.
BoersF.WarrenP.HeL.DeconinckJ. (2017). Does adding pictures to glosses enhance vocabulary uptake from reading?System, 66, 113–129.
14.
BuffingtonJ.Morgan-ShortK. (2019). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language aptitude. In WenZ.SkehanP.BiedrońA.LiS.SparksR. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 215–237). New York: Routledge.
15.
BultéB.HousenA. (2018). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 147–164.
16.
CappelleB.ShtyrovY.PulvermüllerF. (2010) Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language, 115, 189–201.
17.
CarrollJ.B.SaponS.M. (1959). Modern language aptitude test. New York: The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
18.
ChenX.MeurersD. (2019). Linking text readability and learner proficiency using linguistic complexity feature vector distance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32, 418-447.
19.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS.G.AikenL.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
Council of Europe. (2001). A common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
CowanN. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 51–57.
22.
CowanN. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1158–1170.
23.
CronbachL.J.SnowR.E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Oxford: Irvington.
24.
CsizérK. (2017). Motivation in the L2 classroom. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 418–432). New York: Routledge.
25.
DeKeyserR.M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.
26.
DeKeyserR.M. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200.
27.
DeKeyserR.M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). 2nd edition.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28.
DoughtyC.J. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, pp. 206–257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
DoughtyC.J. (2019) Cognitive language aptitude. Language Learning, 69, 101–126.
30.
EllisR. (2012). Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
31.
EllisR. (2016). Anniversary article Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 3, 405–428.
32.
EngleR.W. (2018). Working memory and executive attention: A revisit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 190–193.
33.
ErlamR. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.
Faretta-StutenbergM.Morgan-ShortK. (2018). The interplay of individual differences and context of learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language development. Second Language Research, 34, 67–101.
36.
GardnerD.DaviesM. (2007). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 339–359.
37.
GarnierM.SchmittN. (2016) Picking up polysemous phrasal verbs: How many do learners know and what facilitates this knowledge?System, 59, 29–44.
38.
González FernándezB.SchmittN. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 280–298). New York: Routledge.
39.
GooJ. (2012) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
40.
GooJ.GranenaG.YilmazY.NovellaM. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In RebuschatP. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41.
GranenaG.YilmazY. (2018). Aptitude-treatment interaction in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Studies in English Education, 4, 803–830.
42.
GreyS.WilliamsJ.N.RebuschatP. (2015). Individual differences in incidental language learning: Phonological working memory, learning styles, and personality. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 44–53.
43.
HamrickP. (2015). Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in incidental language learning. Learning & Individual Differences, 44, 9–15.
44.
HamrickP.LumJ.A.G.UllmanM.T. (2018). Child first language and adult second language are both tied to general purpose learning systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 1487–1492.
45.
HicksK.L.FosterJ.L.EngleR.W. (2016). Measuring working memory capacity on the web with the Online Working Memory Lab (the OWL). Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 478–489.
46.
HopmanE.W.M.MacDonaldM.C. (2018). Production practice during language learning improves comprehension. Psychological Science, 29, 961–971.
47.
HulstijnJ.H. (2007). Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition. EuroSLA Yearbook, 7, 191–203.
48.
IndrarathneB.KormosJ. (2018). The role of working memory in processing L2 input: Insights from eye-tracking. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 355–374.
49.
JacksonD.O. (2019). The potential relationship between openness and explicit versus implicit L2 knowledge. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 289–306.
50.
JaegerT.F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.
51.
JuffsA.HarringtonM. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137–166.
52.
KangE.Y.SokS.HanZ. (2018). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 428–453.
53.
KiddE.DonnellyS.ChristiansenM.H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 154–169.
54.
Klein-BraleyC. (1985). A cloze-up on the C-Test: A study in the construct validation of authentic tests. Language Testing, 2, 76–104.
55.
LadoB. (2017). Aptitude and pedagogical conditions in the early development of a nonprimary language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 679–701.
56.
Larsen-FreemanD.Celce-MurciaM. (2015). The grammar book: Form, meaning, and use for English language teachers. Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
57.
LeeJ.H.LevineG.S. (2018). The effects of instructor language choice on second language vocabulary learning and listening comprehension. Language Teaching Research. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 29May2018 (doi: 10.1177/1362168818770910).
58.
LiS. (2017a). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 396–417). New York: Routledge.
59.
LiS. (2017b). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction: A synthetic review. In Gurzynski-WeissL. (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 41–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
60.
LiS.RoshanS. (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.
61.
LiS.EllisR.ZhuY. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 693–722.
62.
LiaoY.FukuyaY.J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54, 193–226.
63.
LinckJ.A.CunningsI. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65, 185–207.
64.
LinckJ.A.WeissD.J. (2015). Can working memory and inhibitory control predict second language learning in the classroom?SAGE Open, 5, 1–11.
65.
LinckJ.A.OsthusP.KoethJ.T.BuntingM.F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.
66.
LiuD. (2011). The most frequently used English phrasal verbs in American and British English: A multicorpus examination. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 661–688.
67.
LiuD. (2012). The most frequently-used multi-word constructions in academic written English: A multi-corpus study. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 25–35.
68.
LongM.H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
69.
LongM.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de BotK.GinsbergR.B.KramschC. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
70.
LuX. (2018). Natural language processing and intelligent computer-assisted language learning (ICALL). In LiontasJ.I. (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Electronic publication. Published online: 18January2018 (doi: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0422).
71.
MacWhinneyB. (2017). A shared platform for studying second language acquisition. Language Learning, 67, 254–275.
72.
MaloneJ. (2018). Incidental vocabulary learning in SLA: Effects of frequency, aural enhancement, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 651–675.
73.
MeurersD.DickinsonM (2017) Evidence and interpretation in language learning research: Opportunities for collaboration with computational linguistics. Language Learning, 67(S1), 66–95.
74.
MeurersD.De KuthyK.NuxollF.RudzewitzB.ZiaiR. (2019). Scaling up intervention studies to investigate real-life foreign language learning in school. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 161–188.
75.
MeurersD.ZiaiR.AmaralL.BoydA.DimitrovA.MetcalfV.OttN. (2010). Enhancing authentic web pages for language learners. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Fifth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 10–18). Association for Computational Linguistics.
76.
MitchellC. (2018). Teaching phrasal verbs. In LiontasJ.I. (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Electronic publication. Published online: 18January2018 (doi: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0759).
77.
Morgan-ShortK.Faretta-StutenbergM.Brill-SchuetzK.A.CarpenterH.WongP.C.M. (2014). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 56–72.
78.
MurakamiA. (2016). Modeling systematicity and individuality in nonlinear second language development: The case of English grammatical morphemes. Language Learning, 66, 834–871.
79.
NeaguM. (2007). English verb particles and their acquisition: A cognitive approach. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 20, 121–138.
80.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
81.
PawlakM. (2017). Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects on the process and outcome of L2 interaction. In Gurzynski-WeissL. (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach (pp. 19–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
82.
Pino-SilvaJ. (2009). Extensive reading through the Internet: Is it worth the while?International Journal of English Studies, 9. Electronic publication. Published online (https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/90761).
83.
PoldrackR.A.PackardM.G. (2003). Competition among multiple memory systems: Converging evidence from animal and human brain studies. Neuropsychologia, 41, 245–251.
84.
R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed August 2019).
85.
RobinsonP. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45–73.
86.
RobinsonP.MackeyA.GassS.M.SchmidtR. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In GassS.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 247–267). New York: Routledge.
87.
RoehrK. (2008). Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 67–106.
88.
RuizS.TagarelliK.M.RebuschatP. (2018). Simultaneous acquisition of words and syntax: Effects of exposure condition and declarative memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1168.
89.
SchmittN. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
90.
SchmittN.RedwoodS. (2011). Learner knowledge of phrasal verbs: A corpus-informed study. In MeunierF.De CockS.GilquinG.PaquotM. (Eds.), A taste for corpora: In honour of Sylviane (pp. 173–209). Granger. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
91.
Sharwood SmithM. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–32. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43104426 (accessed August 2019).
92.
Sharwood SmithM. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.
SkeppstedtM.AhltorpM.HenrikssonA. (2013). Vocabulary expansion by semantic extraction of medical terms. In RinaldiF.KimJ. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Symposium on Languages in Biology and Medicine (LBM). Tokyo, Japan.
95.
SokS.KangE.Y.HanZ. (2018). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A methodological synthesis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 403–427.
96.
SonbulS.SchmittN. (2013). Explicit and implicit lexical knowledge: Acquisition of collocations under different input conditions. Language Learning, 63, 121–159.
97.
SpadaN. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.
98.
SpadaN.TomitaY. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
99.
SquireL.R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 82, 171–177.
100.
SungM.C. (2017). Underuse of English verb–particle constructions in an L2 learner corpus: Focus on structural patterns and one-word preference. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 14March2017 (doi: 10.1515/cllt-2017-0002).
101.
SuzukiY.DeKeyserR.M. (2017). Exploratory research on second language practice distribution: An aptitude-by-treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 27–56.
102.
SuzukiY.NakataT.DeKeyserR. (2019). Optimizing second language practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. The Modern Language Journal. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 2August2019 (doi: 10.1111/modl.12582).
103.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
104.
TagarelliK.M.Borges MotaM.RebuschatP.(2015). Working memory, learning conditions and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In WenZ.E.MotaM.B.McNeillA. (Eds.) Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 224–247.
105.
TagarelliK.M.RuizS.Moreno-VegaJ.L.RebuschatP. (2016). Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 293–316.
106.
ThibeauT.J. (1999). English prepositions in phrasal verbs: A study in second language acquisition. Tuscon, AZ: The University of Arizona.
107.
ThimS. (2012). Phrasal verbs: The English verb–particle construction and its history. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
UllmanM.T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 135–158). 2nd edition.New York: Routledge.
110.
UllmanM.T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In HickokG.SmallS.A. (Eds.), Neurobiology of Language (pp. 953–968). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
111.
UllmanM.T.LovelettJ.T. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Language Research, 34, 39–65.
112.
UnsworthN.HeitzR.P.SchrockJ.C.EngleR.W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.
113.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
114.
VatzK.TareM.JacksonS.R.DoughtyC.J. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In GranenaG.LongM. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273–292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
115.
WenZ. (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: The phonological/ executive model. In WenZ.E.MotaM.B.McNeillA. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 41–62). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
116.
WenZ. (2019). Working memory as language aptitude: The Phonological/Executive Model. In WenZ.SkehanP.BiedronA.LiS.SparksR. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 187–214). New York: Routledge.
117.
WilliamsJ.N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In RobinsonP.MackeyA.GassS.M.SchmidtR. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). New York: Routledge.
118.
YangY.ShintaniN.LiS.ZhangY. (2017). The effectiveness of post-reading word-focused activities and their associations with working memory. System, 70, 38–49.
119.
ZieglerN.MeurersD.RebuschatP.RuizS.Moreno-VegaJ.L.ChinkinaM.LiW.GreyS. (2017). Interdisciplinary research at the intersection of CALL, NLP, and SLA: Methodological implications from an input enhancement project. Language Learning, 67(S1), 210–232.
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.
