Working memory, L2 proficiency, and task complexity: Independent and interactive effects on L2 written performance
This study examined the independent effects of working memory (WM) and the interactive effects of WM/L2 proficiency and WM/task complexity on L2 written performance. The study followed a within–between-participant factorial design, with two levels of task complexity as the within-participant variabl...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Studies in second language acquisition 2023-07, Vol.45 (3), p.737-764 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 764 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 737 |
| container_title | Studies in second language acquisition |
| container_volume | 45 |
| creator | Manchón, Rosa Maria McBride, Sophie Mellado Martínez, María Dolores Vasylets, Olena |
| description | This study examined the independent effects of working memory (WM) and the interactive effects of WM/L2 proficiency and WM/task complexity on L2 written performance. The study followed a within–between-participant factorial design, with two levels of task complexity as the within-participant variable and L2 proficiency and WM as between-participants variables. The outcome measure was L2 writing performance as measured by CAF indices. Two groups of undergraduate students from a degree in English studies were invited to complete the simple and complex version of the “Fire-Chief” task. Task complexity was operationalized in terms of reasoning demands, and tasks were counterbalanced to avoid unwanted order effects. Participants also completed the Oxford Placement Test and a working memory test (n-back). Regarding independent effects, results show that WM did not have an effect on L2 writing performance. In contrast, L2 proficiency was the variable most connected to various dimensions of the text produced. As for interactive effects, no significant interaction between WM, proficiency, or task complexity was found. In contrast, L2 proficiency emerged as the sole significant predictor of L2 writing performance at both levels of task complexity. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0272263123000141 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2864462308</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0272263123000141</cupid><sourcerecordid>2864462308</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-9757fa582b2164465a311914e4222f9113c5d533d9f52ddb6f6c67898aae1c8a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9PwzAMxSMEEmPwAbhF4kohTtq05YYm_kyaxAEQxypLnSnbmpY0A_btSdkkDoiLLcvv_Sw_Qs6BXQGD_PqZ8ZxzKYALxhikcEBGkOYsgSzNDsloWCfD_pic9P0yamSeixHxb61fWbegDTat317SGaedb43VFp2Os3I1DapfUd023Rq_bNje0KmrscNYXPgRWBfQKx3sB1I0BnXoaesG1qe3IaCjHXrT-kY5jafkyKh1j2f7Piav93cvk8dk9vQwndzOEi0kC0mZZ7lRWcHnHGSaykwJgBJSTDnnpgQQOqszIerSZLyu59JILfOiLJRC0IUSY3Kx48Z_3jfYh2rZbryLJyteDMQYVRFVsFNp3_a9R1N13jbKbytg1RBt9Sfa6BF7j2rm3tYL_EX_7_oGhpB6lg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2864462308</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Working memory, L2 proficiency, and task complexity: Independent and interactive effects on L2 written performance</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Manchón, Rosa Maria ; McBride, Sophie ; Mellado Martínez, María Dolores ; Vasylets, Olena</creator><creatorcontrib>Manchón, Rosa Maria ; McBride, Sophie ; Mellado Martínez, María Dolores ; Vasylets, Olena</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined the independent effects of working memory (WM) and the interactive effects of WM/L2 proficiency and WM/task complexity on L2 written performance. The study followed a within–between-participant factorial design, with two levels of task complexity as the within-participant variable and L2 proficiency and WM as between-participants variables. The outcome measure was L2 writing performance as measured by CAF indices. Two groups of undergraduate students from a degree in English studies were invited to complete the simple and complex version of the “Fire-Chief” task. Task complexity was operationalized in terms of reasoning demands, and tasks were counterbalanced to avoid unwanted order effects. Participants also completed the Oxford Placement Test and a working memory test (n-back). Regarding independent effects, results show that WM did not have an effect on L2 writing performance. In contrast, L2 proficiency was the variable most connected to various dimensions of the text produced. As for interactive effects, no significant interaction between WM, proficiency, or task complexity was found. In contrast, L2 proficiency emerged as the sole significant predictor of L2 writing performance at both levels of task complexity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-2631</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1470-1545</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0272263123000141</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive ability ; College students ; Complexity ; English as a second language ; Knowledge ; Language Acquisition ; Language proficiency ; Linguistics ; Memory ; Phonology ; Problem solving ; Second language learning ; Second language writing ; Short term memory ; Thinking Skills ; Writers ; Writing</subject><ispartof>Studies in second language acquisition, 2023-07, Vol.45 (3), p.737-764</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-9757fa582b2164465a311914e4222f9113c5d533d9f52ddb6f6c67898aae1c8a3</citedby><orcidid>0000-0003-0080-9734</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0272263123000141/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,315,781,785,27928,27929,55632</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Manchón, Rosa Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McBride, Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellado Martínez, María Dolores</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasylets, Olena</creatorcontrib><title>Working memory, L2 proficiency, and task complexity: Independent and interactive effects on L2 written performance</title><title>Studies in second language acquisition</title><addtitle>Stud Second Lang Acquis</addtitle><description>This study examined the independent effects of working memory (WM) and the interactive effects of WM/L2 proficiency and WM/task complexity on L2 written performance. The study followed a within–between-participant factorial design, with two levels of task complexity as the within-participant variable and L2 proficiency and WM as between-participants variables. The outcome measure was L2 writing performance as measured by CAF indices. Two groups of undergraduate students from a degree in English studies were invited to complete the simple and complex version of the “Fire-Chief” task. Task complexity was operationalized in terms of reasoning demands, and tasks were counterbalanced to avoid unwanted order effects. Participants also completed the Oxford Placement Test and a working memory test (n-back). Regarding independent effects, results show that WM did not have an effect on L2 writing performance. In contrast, L2 proficiency was the variable most connected to various dimensions of the text produced. As for interactive effects, no significant interaction between WM, proficiency, or task complexity was found. In contrast, L2 proficiency emerged as the sole significant predictor of L2 writing performance at both levels of task complexity.</description><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>College students</subject><subject>Complexity</subject><subject>English as a second language</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Language Acquisition</subject><subject>Language proficiency</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Phonology</subject><subject>Problem solving</subject><subject>Second language learning</subject><subject>Second language writing</subject><subject>Short term memory</subject><subject>Thinking Skills</subject><subject>Writers</subject><subject>Writing</subject><issn>0272-2631</issn><issn>1470-1545</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>IKXGN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE9PwzAMxSMEEmPwAbhF4kohTtq05YYm_kyaxAEQxypLnSnbmpY0A_btSdkkDoiLLcvv_Sw_Qs6BXQGD_PqZ8ZxzKYALxhikcEBGkOYsgSzNDsloWCfD_pic9P0yamSeixHxb61fWbegDTat317SGaedb43VFp2Os3I1DapfUd023Rq_bNje0KmrscNYXPgRWBfQKx3sB1I0BnXoaesG1qe3IaCjHXrT-kY5jafkyKh1j2f7Piav93cvk8dk9vQwndzOEi0kC0mZZ7lRWcHnHGSaykwJgBJSTDnnpgQQOqszIerSZLyu59JILfOiLJRC0IUSY3Kx48Z_3jfYh2rZbryLJyteDMQYVRFVsFNp3_a9R1N13jbKbytg1RBt9Sfa6BF7j2rm3tYL_EX_7_oGhpB6lg</recordid><startdate>20230701</startdate><enddate>20230701</enddate><creator>Manchón, Rosa Maria</creator><creator>McBride, Sophie</creator><creator>Mellado Martínez, María Dolores</creator><creator>Vasylets, Olena</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IKXGN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0080-9734</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230701</creationdate><title>Working memory, L2 proficiency, and task complexity: Independent and interactive effects on L2 written performance</title><author>Manchón, Rosa Maria ; McBride, Sophie ; Mellado Martínez, María Dolores ; Vasylets, Olena</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-9757fa582b2164465a311914e4222f9113c5d533d9f52ddb6f6c67898aae1c8a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>College students</topic><topic>Complexity</topic><topic>English as a second language</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Language Acquisition</topic><topic>Language proficiency</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Phonology</topic><topic>Problem solving</topic><topic>Second language learning</topic><topic>Second language writing</topic><topic>Short term memory</topic><topic>Thinking Skills</topic><topic>Writers</topic><topic>Writing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Manchón, Rosa Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McBride, Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellado Martínez, María Dolores</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasylets, Olena</creatorcontrib><collection>Cambridge Journals Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Studies in second language acquisition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Manchón, Rosa Maria</au><au>McBride, Sophie</au><au>Mellado Martínez, María Dolores</au><au>Vasylets, Olena</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Working memory, L2 proficiency, and task complexity: Independent and interactive effects on L2 written performance</atitle><jtitle>Studies in second language acquisition</jtitle><addtitle>Stud Second Lang Acquis</addtitle><date>2023-07-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>737</spage><epage>764</epage><pages>737-764</pages><issn>0272-2631</issn><eissn>1470-1545</eissn><abstract>This study examined the independent effects of working memory (WM) and the interactive effects of WM/L2 proficiency and WM/task complexity on L2 written performance. The study followed a within–between-participant factorial design, with two levels of task complexity as the within-participant variable and L2 proficiency and WM as between-participants variables. The outcome measure was L2 writing performance as measured by CAF indices. Two groups of undergraduate students from a degree in English studies were invited to complete the simple and complex version of the “Fire-Chief” task. Task complexity was operationalized in terms of reasoning demands, and tasks were counterbalanced to avoid unwanted order effects. Participants also completed the Oxford Placement Test and a working memory test (n-back). Regarding independent effects, results show that WM did not have an effect on L2 writing performance. In contrast, L2 proficiency was the variable most connected to various dimensions of the text produced. As for interactive effects, no significant interaction between WM, proficiency, or task complexity was found. In contrast, L2 proficiency emerged as the sole significant predictor of L2 writing performance at both levels of task complexity.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0272263123000141</doi><tpages>28</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0080-9734</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0272-2631 |
| ispartof | Studies in second language acquisition, 2023-07, Vol.45 (3), p.737-764 |
| issn | 0272-2631 1470-1545 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2864462308 |
| source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Cognition & reasoning Cognitive ability College students Complexity English as a second language Knowledge Language Acquisition Language proficiency Linguistics Memory Phonology Problem solving Second language learning Second language writing Short term memory Thinking Skills Writers Writing |
| title | Working memory, L2 proficiency, and task complexity: Independent and interactive effects on L2 written performance |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T01%3A29%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Working%20memory,%20L2%20proficiency,%20and%20task%20complexity:%20Independent%20and%20interactive%20effects%20on%20L2%20written%20performance&rft.jtitle=Studies%20in%20second%20language%20acquisition&rft.au=Manch%C3%B3n,%20Rosa%20Maria&rft.date=2023-07-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=737&rft.epage=764&rft.pages=737-764&rft.issn=0272-2631&rft.eissn=1470-1545&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0272263123000141&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2864462308%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2864462308&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0272263123000141&rfr_iscdi=true |