Article published in:
Aptitude-treatment interaction in second language learningEdited by Robert M. DeKeyser
[Journal of Second Language Studies 2:2] 2019
► pp. 281–316
Working memory and planning time as predictors of fluency and accuracy
Katharine Brown Nielson | VOXY
Robert DeKeyser | University of Maryland, College Park
Working memory, which accounts for the ability to process information in the face of interference, is critical to
second language acquisition (SLA) and use. The interaction of working memory capacity (WMC) with specific pedagogical
interventions is a logical place for empirical SLA research, both to examine the cognitive processes underpinning second language
performance and to identify instructional treatments that may serve learners differently based on their WMC. This study considers
WMC along with two different types of pre-task planning time (guided and unguided) as predictors of the attempted accuracy and
fluency of learners’ discourse. Seventy-two intermediate ESL students from seven classes at a community college participated by
completing two different working memory span tasks, as well as two different “There-and-Then” oral story-telling tasks. The
treatment condition of the story-telling tasks was manipulated so that learners’ performance could be considered in terms of
provision of pre-task planning (+/− planning), type of planning (guided vs. unguided), and order of planning (planning first or
planning second). Task order had a clear effect on learners’ production, regardless of the provision of planning time. Guided
planning time promoted a focus on attempted accuracy and unguided planning time fostered fluency. Finally, this study indicates
that task conditions can affect high- and low-WMC learners in different ways: the former are more likely to comply with complex
story-telling instructions, requiring them to focus on grammatical form at the expense of fluency, whereas the latter are less
likely to comply with the same instructions.
Keywords: tasks, ESL, planning, working memory capacity, aptitude
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Task demands, cognition, and L2 performance
- 1.2Working memory and SLA
- 1.3Planning and SLA
- 1.4The present study
- 2.Method
- 2.1Participants
- 2.2Instruments
- 2.3Procedures
- 3.Results
- 3.1Descriptive statistics and initial analyses of variables
- 3.2Planning order/conditions and WMC: Initial analyses
- 3.3The order of the provision of planning time
- 3.3.1Descriptive statistics split by planning order
- 3.3.2Between-groups data analysis without the influence of task repetition
- 3.3.3Repeated measures analyses: No planning first
- 3.3.4Repeated measures analyses for participants who began with planning time
- 3.4Summary of relationship among variables and planning conditions
- 3.5Working memory
- 4.Discussion
- 4.1The influence of task order on learner fluency
- 4.2Guided and unguided planning as predictors of fluency
- 4.3Guided and unguided planning as predictors of attempted accuracy
- 4.4WMC and learner production
- 4.5Synthesis of results by planning condition and WMC
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 08 October 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19004.bro
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19004.bro
References
Atkins, S. M., Harbison, J. I., Bunting, M. F., Teubner-Rhodes, S., & Dougherty, M. R.
Baddeley, A. & Hitch, G.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W.
Cowan, N.
Crookes, G.
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P.
Daneman, M. & Green, I.
DeKeyser, R. M.
DeKeyser, R. M. & Koeth, J.
Ellis, R.
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W.
(1999) Individual differences in WMC and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and
functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Engle, R. W.
Gilabert, R.
Gilabert, R., & Muñoz, C.
Guará-Tavares, M. G.
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M.
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W.
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W.
Kawauchi, C.
Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A.
Kormos, J. & Trebits, A.
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F.
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T.
Mehnert, U.
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L.
Nielson, K.
Ortega, L.
Park, S.
Payne, J. & Ross, B.
Payne, J. & Whitney, P.
Rai, M. K., Loschky, L. C., Harris, R. J., Peck, N. R. & Cook, L. G.
Robinson, P.
Sangarun, J.
Skehan, P. & P. Foster
Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P.
Sprenger, A. M., Atkins, S. M., Colflesh, G. J. H., Briner, T. L., Buchanan, J. B., Chavis, S. E., Chen, S., Iannuzzi, G. L., Kashtelyan, V., Dowling, E., Bolger, D. J., Bunting, M. F., & Dougherty, M. R.
in preparation). A four-dimensional video game for measuring cognitive ability.
Sunderman, G. & Kroll, J.
Unsworth, N. & Engle, R.
Wigglesworth, G.
Williams, J.
Cited by
Cited by 7 other publications
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian & Michael H. Long
Chen, Mo & Wenya Li
Rezaei, Amir & Antonella Valeo
Sadeghi, Michael & Mostafa Pourhaji
Sun, Peijian Paul
Suzuki, Yuichi
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.