{"title":"二语习得语境下工作记忆和语言能力与听力策略教学的关系","authors":"Saime Kara Duman, Şebnem Yalçın, G. Erçetin","doi":"10.1017/S0267190521000040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present small-scale study explores whether working memory (WM) and language aptitude (LA) explain any variance in L2 listening comprehension beyond baseline listening ability and explicit strategy-based listening instruction in an instructed EFL setting at the tertiary level. In a pretest/posttest non-randomized group design, the experimental group (N = 19) received explicit strategy-based listening instruction for 12 hours while the control group (N = 17) followed their regular L2 listening course syllabus. L2 listening comprehension was measured with an L2 academic listening comprehension test. WM measures (Foster et al., 2015) included an operation span task (OST), a symmetry span task (SST), and a rotation span task (RST). LA was assessed with LLAMA (Meara, 2005). The findings revealed the effectiveness of strategy-based intervention for L2 listening comprehension. A hierarchical regression analysis indicated that baseline listening scores explained about 52% of the variance in the post-listening scores, while listening strategy instruction explained an additional 16% of the variance. On the other hand, WM and LA did not explain any variance in listening comprehension scores, suggesting that the two individual learner differences in the present study are not significant predictors of L2 listening comprehension.","PeriodicalId":47490,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Applied Linguistics","volume":"41 1","pages":"108 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0267190521000040","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Working memory and language aptitude in relation to listening strategy instruction in an instructed SLA context\",\"authors\":\"Saime Kara Duman, Şebnem Yalçın, G. Erçetin\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0267190521000040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The present small-scale study explores whether working memory (WM) and language aptitude (LA) explain any variance in L2 listening comprehension beyond baseline listening ability and explicit strategy-based listening instruction in an instructed EFL setting at the tertiary level. In a pretest/posttest non-randomized group design, the experimental group (N = 19) received explicit strategy-based listening instruction for 12 hours while the control group (N = 17) followed their regular L2 listening course syllabus. L2 listening comprehension was measured with an L2 academic listening comprehension test. WM measures (Foster et al., 2015) included an operation span task (OST), a symmetry span task (SST), and a rotation span task (RST). LA was assessed with LLAMA (Meara, 2005). The findings revealed the effectiveness of strategy-based intervention for L2 listening comprehension. A hierarchical regression analysis indicated that baseline listening scores explained about 52% of the variance in the post-listening scores, while listening strategy instruction explained an additional 16% of the variance. On the other hand, WM and LA did not explain any variance in listening comprehension scores, suggesting that the two individual learner differences in the present study are not significant predictors of L2 listening comprehension.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"108 - 117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0267190521000040\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190521000040\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190521000040","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
摘要本研究旨在探讨工作记忆(WM)和语言能力(LA)是否能解释在高等教育英语教学环境下,二语听力理解在基线听力能力和显性策略听力教学之外的任何差异。在测试前/测试后的非随机分组设计中,实验组(N = 19)接受了12小时的显性基于策略的听力指导,而对照组(N = 17)则遵循了他们常规的第二语言听力课程大纲。二语听力理解采用二语学术性听力理解测试。WM测量(Foster et al., 2015)包括操作跨度任务(OST)、对称跨度任务(SST)和旋转跨度任务(RST)。LA采用LLAMA评估(Meara, 2005)。研究结果揭示了策略干预对二语听力理解的有效性。层次回归分析表明,基线听力分数解释了52%的听力后分数方差,而听力策略指导解释了16%的方差。另一方面,WM和LA并没有解释听力理解分数的任何差异,这表明本研究中两个学习者的个体差异并不是二语听力理解的显著预测因素。
Working memory and language aptitude in relation to listening strategy instruction in an instructed SLA context
Abstract The present small-scale study explores whether working memory (WM) and language aptitude (LA) explain any variance in L2 listening comprehension beyond baseline listening ability and explicit strategy-based listening instruction in an instructed EFL setting at the tertiary level. In a pretest/posttest non-randomized group design, the experimental group (N = 19) received explicit strategy-based listening instruction for 12 hours while the control group (N = 17) followed their regular L2 listening course syllabus. L2 listening comprehension was measured with an L2 academic listening comprehension test. WM measures (Foster et al., 2015) included an operation span task (OST), a symmetry span task (SST), and a rotation span task (RST). LA was assessed with LLAMA (Meara, 2005). The findings revealed the effectiveness of strategy-based intervention for L2 listening comprehension. A hierarchical regression analysis indicated that baseline listening scores explained about 52% of the variance in the post-listening scores, while listening strategy instruction explained an additional 16% of the variance. On the other hand, WM and LA did not explain any variance in listening comprehension scores, suggesting that the two individual learner differences in the present study are not significant predictors of L2 listening comprehension.
期刊介绍:
The Annual Review of Applied Linguistics publishes research on key topics in the broad field of applied linguistics. Each issue is thematic, providing a variety of perspectives on the topic through research summaries, critical overviews, position papers and empirical studies. Being responsive to the field, some issues are tied to the theme of that year''s annual conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. Also, at regular intervals an issue will take the approach of covering applied linguistics as a field more broadly, including coverage of critical or controversial topics. ARAL provides cutting-edge and timely articles on a wide number of areas, including language learning and pedagogy, second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, language policy and planning, language assessment, and research design and methodology, to name just a few.