Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development

Language Learning and Language Teaching

Volumn 2, Issue , 2002, Pages 181-209

  MacKey, Alison ^a   Philp, Jenefer ^b   Egi, Takako ^a   Fujii, Akiko ^a   Tatsumi, Tomoaki ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85127377644     PISSN: 15699471     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (9)

1. Citing various priming studies as providing evidence for implicit learning, Tomlin and Villa argue for the possibility of a dissociation between learning and awareness, as others have done (see Carr & Curran, 1994; Gass, 1997).
2. "Sentence span test" is used as a cover term for both reading and listening versions of the tests, based on Daneman and Carpenter (1980).
3. A discussion of the relationship between STM and WM is beyond the scope of this chapter. We have focused instead on the memory constructs that previous research has linked to aspects of second language learning. Miyake and Shah (1999)
4. It should be noted that the construct of noticing has attracted criticism. Carroll (1999)
5. Research suggests a potential distinction between "simple" and "complex" recasts in terms of provision and learner modification, for both FLA (Bohannon & Stanowicz, 1988; Farrar, 1992)
6. WM capacities. This selection procedure was also used by Turner and Engle (1989).
7. The rationale for using a score of 25% or more to indicate "more noticing" was based on L1A research by Bohannon, MacWhinney, and Snow (1990)
8. As small cell sizes precluded the use of chi square tests, Fisher's Exact tests were used for all analyses (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991).
9. Language aptitude was measured by Sasaki's Language Aptitude Battery for Japanese (LABJ) described by Sasaki (1996)