Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
The Role of Working Memory in Implicit and Explicit Language Learning
2011; Wiley; Volume: 33; Issue: 33 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
1551-6709
AutoresKaitlyn M. Tagarelli, Mailce Borges Mota, Patrick Rebuschat,
Tópico(s)Educational and Psychological Assessments
ResumoThe Role of Working Memory in Implicit and Explicit Language Learning Kaitlyn M. Tagarelli (kmt49@georgetown.edu) Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University 37 th and O Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20057 Mailce Borges-Mota (mailce@cce.ufsc.br) Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Federal University of Santa Catarina CCE – Building B, Florianopolis, Santa Catarina, 88040900, Brazil Patrick Rebuschat (per6@georgetown.edu) Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University 37 th and O Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20057 Abstract The Role of Context Working memory capacity (WMC) has been shown to correlate with performance on complex cognitive tasks, including language comprehension and production. However, some scholars have suggested that performance outcomes result from an interaction between individual differences (IDs), such as WMC, and learning conditions (Robinson, 2005a). Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) specifically claimed that IDs influence performance on explicit, but not implicit, processes. In this study, English native- speakers were exposed to a semi-artificial language under incidental or rule-search conditions, and their WMC was measured by two complex-span tasks. Both conditions produced a clear learning effect, with an advantage for the rule-search group. No significant correlations between overall performance on a grammaticality judgment task and WM scores were found for either group. However, WMC predicted performance on grammatical items for the rule-search group. These results support Reber et al.’s (1991) claim that aptitude measures may only be predictive of learning in explicit conditions. Keywords: implicit learning; explicit learning; working memory Introduction Working memory has been shown to play a role in many aspects of first language (L1) processing and performance. Yet because of certain limitations on second language (L2) learners, such as maturational constraints, WM may be more important in L2 than in L1 (Miyake & Friedman, 1998). Many studies have found relationships between WM and L2 proficiency and development. WM capacity (WMC) has been shown to positively correlate with performance on sections of the TOEFL, reading comprehension abilities (for a review, see Miyake & Friedman, 1998), gender and number agreement processing (Sagarra & Herschensohn, 2010), the ability to make use of interactional feedback in classroom settings (Mackey, Philp, Egi, Fujii, et al., 2002), and L2 proficiency (van den Noort, Bosch, and Hugdahl, 2006). Overall, the evidence suggests that WMC plays a role in L2 acquisition. However, the predictive power of WMC may be mediated by learning conditions. Research into individual differences (IDs) and pedagogical approaches to L2 acquisition have recently merged because of the inextricable link between the two. Skehan (2002) has suggested that aptitude is more predictive of L2 acquisition success in formal, structured learning contexts. Support for combining these lines of research has also come from Robinson (2002) and Erlam (2005), who expressed that “a particular method of instruction may not (...) benefit all learners uniformly” (p. 147). However, Robinson and Erlam make no claims about whether IDs should have a greater effect in one learning condition than in others. Research in cognitive psychology suggests that there should be differences in how aptitude influences learning in implicit and explicit conditions because these two systems are fundamentally distinct. Reber et al. (1991) explain this distinction by evoking the idea of the “primacy of the implicit” (p. 888). The basis of this primacy is that implicit processes have older biological substrates, which vary little among “corticated species” (Reber, 1989, p. 232), and even less from human to human. Thus, implicit processes should be more robust than explicit processes, unconscious functions should operate relatively uniformly within the population as compared to conscious functions, and IDs should not contribute to variance in implicit processes, but should in explicit processes. Studies that investigate implicit and explicit learning adhere to several fundamental criteria when operationalizing these conditions. In explicit conditions, subjects are made aware that they are supposed to learn something, and they usually know that they will be tested. There are two main options for explicit conditions. In rule-search conditions, subjects are exposed to the system to be learned and instructed to find rules. Alternatively, subjects can be presented with rules (rule-instruction) and exposed to the system. In some cases, explicit conditions consist of simply drawing the subjects’ attention to the target structure without indicating that there is a system to be learned (awareness raising). In implicit conditions, subjects are not informed about the true purpose of the experiment; they do not know that they should be learning something or that
Referência(s)