Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
In English learning, speaking and writing are active learning, for they require L2 (secondlanguage) learners to output what they have learned. During the output process, learners willhave to utilize their cognitive mechanisms and quickly organize huge amounts of informationtogether in their memory: appropriate words and phrases, correct grammatical words form andorder, and meaningful accurate syntax. In other words, when a learner produces something, hisor her brain is functioning fast, retrieving all the relevant language resources stored andprocessing them simultaneously in the mind. Since the amount of information that needs to bestored and processed is so large, questions about how these information works and what factorsmight affect or relate to the production of output are raised. When it comes to the storage andprocessing of information in L2 research, working memory can not be ignored as workingmemory refers to a brain system that provides temporary storage and manipulation of theinformation necessary for such complex cognitive tasks as language comprehension, learning,and reasoning (Baddeley, 1992). Is it possible that working memory is related to learners output?Is there any chance that learners' working memory capacity affects their tendency to produceoutput and even modify their output when provided with appropriate feedback? That is why thecurrent study attempts to combine working memory with output production to explore theirrelationship through an empirical interactional study.
……………..
1.2 Aim and Significance of the Study
Output production is an important field of study in cognitive linguistics. A number ofempirical studies have suggested the effects of modified output on L2 learning (McDonough,2005; Swain, 2005). Also, researchers have argued that conversational interaction can facilitateL2 learning in a number of ways (Gass,1997, 2003; Gass & Mackey, 2007; Long, 1996,2007;Mackey, 2007; Pica, 1994). Thus, the current study aims to discuss the facilitating effects ofoutput modification on L2 learning in task-based interactional L2 learning context, with thefocus on the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity, attempting toreveal the internal working memory mechanisms when learners are producing modifications,thus to deepen learners' understanding of L2 learning and provide them some new implicationsto leam English more efficiently. Following are the significances of the current study from threedifferent aspects.Theoretically, a number of researches have shown the effects of modified output in secondlanguage learning, especially in interaction (M. Swain, R. Ellis). Previous studies generallybelieve that some learners will modify their output following the feedback while others not. Thesame learner's output modification varies at different stages during an interaction. Modifiedoutput can promote interlanguage development in a variety of ways (Swain, 1995,2005),hypothesizes are constantly being proposed that modified output advance second languagedevelopment from different perspectives, which suggest that there is still much research to beand can be done in this area. The current study attempts to start from the hypothesis that internalfactors are important in second language learning (Long, 2007), expand the output frameworkresearch and try to clarify the effects of modified output in second language learning form theperspective of the relationship between working memory and second language learning, workingmemory capacity and modified output.
…………..
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1 Key Terms
During the years of L2 study, psycholinguistic constructs have played an important role inhelping us understanding the nature of L2 learning. Significant interest has been raised in thepsycholinguistic construct of working memory in recent years. Working memory is a termevolved from short-term memory. Short-term memory refers to the capacity for holding a smallamount of information in mind in an active,readily available state for a short period of time. Theduration of short-term memory is measured by seconds. Working memory is a limited capacitypart of the human memory system that combines the temporary storage and manipulation orprocessing of information in the service of completing complex cognitive tasks such as reasoning,comprehension and certain types of learning in real-time (Baddeley & Hitch,1974). Itencompasses the dynamic and simultaneous storage and processing function of memory.Working memory differs from short-term memory in that it assumes both the storage andmanipulation of information and emphasizes its functional role in complex cognition whileshort-term memory focuses on information-storage WITHOUT manipulation (Baddeley & Hitch,2010).
………………
2.2 Theoretical Background
Studies showed that interaction plays an important part in L2 learning and conversationalinteraction with native speakers help promote learners' L2 development. Michael Long's (1996)interaction hypothesis places great importance on face to face interaction and stresses itsadvancement in L2 acquisition. Clearly, interaction is an activity integrating input from the interlocutor,L2 learner's linguisticand cognitive ability and learner's organized output. It is considered to be an important contextwhere L2 learning takes place. Long (1996) also pointed out that selective attention and learner'sinternal L2 processing ability are most usefolly brought together during negotiation of meaning,which indicates that input alone can not facilitate L2 learning or be transformed into outputwithout learner's internal capacities. If learners continue to negotiate with the interlocutor aboutthe meaning, they then leam better. Obviously,this negotiation occurs when there is a breakdownin communication which interlocutors try to overcome and fix so to make the interactioncontinue
…………….
Chapter Three Research Design........... 20
3.1 Research Questions........... 20
3.2 Working Memory Span Test Design........... 21
3.3 Modified Output Task Design........... 24
3.4 Summary 29Chapter Four Results and Discussion........... 30
4.1 Results of Students' Responses to Feedback........... 30
4.2 Results of Modified Output Scores........... 31
4.3 Analysis of Modified Output and Working Memory Capacity........... 32
4.4 Discussion........... 35
4.4.1 Discussion regarding responses to feedback........... 35
4.4.2 Discussion regarding modified output and working memory capacity........... 36
4.5 Summary ........... 39
Chapter Five Conclusion ........... 41
5.1 Major Findings of the Study........... 41
5.2 Pedagogical Implications........... 42
5.3 Limitations of the Study........... 43
5.4 Suggestions for Future Study........... 44
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
4.1 Results of Students' Responses to Feedback
After coding and analyzing students' production of modified output, three categories ofresponses to clarification requests during a task-based interaction are found: (1) changes oforiginal utterances as modified output either with a targetlike form or with a non-targetlike form,(2) repeated responses, i.e. repetition of original utterance without any attempt of modification,and (3) other types of possible response. Overall,students had 582 implicit opportunities tomodify their output (mean: 19.4 per student). In these 582 opportunities, all students noticed thefeedback from the researcher and gave some kind of responses. Among the found categories ofresponses, students changed their original utterances most of the time regardless of the extent towhich it is more, or less targetlike, which is coded and analyzed as modified output in the currentstudy. The proportion of repetition of original utterance without any modification wassurprisingly high compared to the author's anticipation,so was the amount of the other types ofresponse. Table 2 gives distribution demonstration of students' responses to feedback.#p#分页标题#e#
…………….
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to attempt to clarify learners' responses tocorrective feedback,i.e. clarification requests in the current study, in a task-based interactionwith a view to documenting the frequency and distribution of different categories of response,second, to explore the relationship between modified output and working memory capacitythrough an empirical study, hypothesizing that learners with higher working memory capacitiestend to produce more modifications while learners with lower working memory capacities arelikely to produce less modified output. With respect to the results in the current study, thefollowing findings are presented:
1) What is the frequency and distribution of responses in English majors to the providedfeedbacks in the context of a task-based interaction? Among the three categories of responses inrelation to the clarification requests provided,changes of original utterances as modified output,repetition of original utterance without any attempt of modification as repeated responses, andother types of possible response were occupying 66.2%,18.6%, and 15.3% respectively.Changes of original utterances, i.e. modified output,were by far the most widely used response.
2) What is the correlation between modified output and working memory capacity? There is significant positive correlation between modified output and working memory capacity,as isproved by the correlation analysis. Results of the linear regression analysis indicated thatlearners' working memory test scores significantly predicted their production of modified output.The F value suggested that the relationship found is significant at the significance level of 0.000.The results have supported the hypothesis of this study: learners with higher working memorycapacities are more likely to modify their output in intmction than those with lower workingmemory capacities.
……………….
Reference (omitted)
