Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T17:02:07.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

28 - Methodological Issues in Research on Working Memory and L2 Reading Comprehension

from Part V - Bilingual Acquisition and Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2022

By
Michael J. Leeser  and
Eric Herman
Edited by
John W. Schwieter  and
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
John W. Schwieter
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
Affiliation:
Hong Kong Shue Yan University
Get access

Summary

The relationship between working memory (WM) and second language (L2) reading comprehension has received considerable attention for nearly three decades. Although studies in this line of research generally report a small to moderate relationship between WM and L2 reading comprehension, comparison of studies remains challenging due to the lack of specification of the kind of comprehension under investigation (e.g., textbase, situation model) and the means of comprehension assessment. In addition, inconsistencies in the usage, scoring and analysis of WM measures further complicate the interpretation of findings across studies. Thus, in this chapter, we examine L2 reading-WM studies, paying particular attention to methodological considerations surrounding the use and scoring of WM tasks and the assessment of comprehension. We argue that methodological decisions can have non-trivial effects on this line of research and provide task recommendations based on current theorizing in reading

Keywords

working memorysecond language readingcomprehensionmeasurementassessment
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language , pp. 613 - 634
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R., & Shahnazari-Dorcheh, M. (2014). The relationship between working memory and L2 reading comprehension. Applied Research on English Language, 3, 19–34.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Assessing the relationship of working memory to L2 reading: Does the nature of comprehension process and RST make a difference? System, 37, 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 206–219.Google Scholar
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2011). Effects of working memory capacity and content familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 235–266.Google Scholar
Alptekin, C., Erçetin, G., & Özemir, O. (2014). Effects of variations in RST design on the relationship between working memory capacity and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 98, 536–552.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, research and classroom perspectives. Ablex.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Converting among effect sizes. In Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (Eds.), Introduction to meta-analysis (pp. 45–49). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. S. (1993). Nelson-Denny Reading Test Form G. Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Choi, S. (2013). Working memory capacity, vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension of EFL learners. English Education Research, 25, 25–42.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 24, 1158–1170.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433.Google Scholar
Drum, P. A., Calfee, R. C., & Cook, L. K. (1981). The effects of surface structure variables on performance in reading comprehension tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 486–514.Google Scholar
Erçetin, G. (2015). Working memory and L2 reading: Theoretical and methodological issues. ELT Research Journal, 4, 101–110.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fontanini, I., & Tomitch, L. M. B. (2009). Working memory capacity and L2 university students’ comprehension of linear texts and hypertexts. International Journal of English Studies, 9, 1–19.Google Scholar
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2005). Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 581–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glanzer, M., Dorfman, D., & Kaplan, B. (1981). Short-term storage in the processing of text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 656–670.Google Scholar
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C. (2015). Deeper learning with advances in discourse science and technology. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 42–50.Google Scholar
Hammadou Sullivan, J. A. (2002). Advanced foreign language readers’ inferencing. In Hammadou Sullivan, J. A. (Ed.), Literacy and the second language learner (pp. 217–238). Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Herman, E., & Leeser, M. J. (in press). The relationship between lexical coverage and type of reading comprehension in beginning L2 Spanish learners.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of linguistic units. Journal of Verbal Learning and Linguistic Behavior, 9, 12–20.Google Scholar
Johnston, P. (1984). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test bias. Reading Research Quarterly,19, 219–239.Google Scholar
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.Google Scholar
Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Reading comprehension theories: A view from the top down. In Schober, M. F., Rapp, D. N., & Britt, M. A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 7–21). Routledge.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1993). Information accretion and reduction in text processing: Inferences. Discourse Processes,16, 193–202.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (2012). Psychological models of reading comprehension and their implications for assessment. In Sabatini, J. P., Albro, E. R., & O’Reilly, T. (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how to assess reading abilities (pp. 21–38). Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In Paris, S. G. & Stahl, S. A. (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research (2nd ed.). Heinemann.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1986). On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 201–212.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J., & Sunderman, G. (2016). Methodological implications of working memory tasks for L2 processing research. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O., & Yilmaz, Y. (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 89-104). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778–784.Google Scholar
Lorch, R. F. (2015). What about expository text? In O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Lorch, R. F. (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 348-361). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Magliano, J., Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2007). Beyond language comprehension: Situation models as a form of autobiographical memory. In Schmalhofer, F. & Perfetti, C. (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 379–391). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., de Vega, M., & O’Reilly, T. (2007). Comprehension skill, inference making, and the role of knowledge. In Schmalhofer, F. & Perfetti, C. A. (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 233–251). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.Google Scholar
Millis, K., Magliano, J., & Todaro, S. (2006). Measuring discourse-level processes with verbal protocols and latent semantic analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 225–240.Google Scholar
Osaka, M., & Osaka, N. (1992). Language-independent working memory as measured by Japanese and English reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 287–289.Google Scholar
Osaka, M., Osaka, N., & Groner, R. (1993). Language-independent working memory: Evidence from German and French reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 117–118.Google Scholar
Park, H., Nam, K., & Lee, Y. S. (2016). The role of reading span in factual and inferential comprehension and retention in L2 reading. Linguistic Research, 33, 81–106.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, D., & van den Broek, P., McMaster, K., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, G. L., & Lee, J. F. (1996). A comparison of recall and summary protocols as measures of second language reading comprehension. Language Testing, 13, 173–189.Google Scholar
Schmalhofer, F., McDaniel, M. A., & Keefe, D. (2002). A unified model for predictive and bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 33, 105–132.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 26–43.Google Scholar
Shibasaki, H., Tokimoto, S., Ono, Y., Inoue, T., & Tamaoka, K. (2015). English reading comprehension by Japanese high school students: Structural equation modeling including working memory and L1 literacy. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 5, 443–458.Google Scholar
Shin, J. (2020). A meta-analysis of the relationship between working memory and second language reading comprehension: Does task type matter? Applied Psycholinguistics, 41, 873–900.Google Scholar
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). On the division of short-term and working memory: An examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1038–1066.Google Scholar
Unsworth, N., & Spillers, G. J. (2010). Working memory capacity: Attention control, secondary memory, or both? A direct test of the dual-component model. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 392–406.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Moort, M. L., Koornneef, A., & van den Broek, P. W. (2020). Differentiating text-based and knowledge-based validation processes during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Discourse Processes, 1–20.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2020). Input processing in adult L2 acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 105–127). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, C. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25, 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, G., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 51–79.Google Scholar
Wolf, D. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In: Ross, B. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 35–62). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×