Zhisheng Edward Wen

University of Macau

I have a question for you all , if you can take just a few minutes to respond, I shall be highly appreciate it.

Over the years, I have noticed that L2/SLA researchers are not as interested in investigating learning to read a new language as they are in investigating learning to speak and listening comprehend the language. While there is some interest in L2 writing, there seems to be more interest in writing than reading. I have found that interesting because, in L1, there are very strong relationships between reading and writing skills. Two questions:

1. Are my perceptions accurate?

2. If so, what is the reason(s)?

I asked another researcher, and here is the response:

Your feedback is very welcome and any references are appreciated.

Thanks,

Edward on Behalf of:

Prof Richard Sparks

Hi Everyone (esp. colleagues working in the fields of Foreign language education and second language acquisition research),I am posting here two questions here from Prof. Richard Sparks (Mount St Joseph University) about the research traditions for Individual Differences in language learning.First, does anyone know of a recent book or comprehensive literature review on the topic of Individual Differences (IDs) in language learning. I have the books or reviews by Ellis (2003), Dornyei (2005), Dornyei and Skehan (2003), Robinson (2002), as well as several others. But when searching the literature, I have not yet found anything more recent, say after 2009-10. I have the book from the 2011 conference in the Netherlands, our chapters from our recent conference in Macau (Wen, Skehan, Biedron, Li & Sparks, 2018), and Hulstijn's book. The latter three books focus mostly on language aptitude and language variables. Do you know of something that has been published recently?

Second, in my work, I move back and forth between reading foreign language education research in the states and SLA research. The former research discusses language variables in L2 learning but also focuses extensively on affective and social variables (motivation, anxiety, learning strategies, learning styles, learner beliefs, etc.). In fact, the foreign language education research here does not focus heavily on language aptitude and language variables as explanations for IDs in L2 learning. However, SLA research appears to focus more on aptitude and cognitive variables for IDs in L2 learning. Is this a fair characterization of these two different fields of inquiry (SLA vs. FL education)? If so, is it fair to speculate that SLA research has "moved on" from affective and social variables as primary areas of interest in L2 learning and instead the field is focusing more (albeit not exclusively) on language aptitude and other cognitive (e.g., working memory) variables? Since I also write and focus heavily on L1 research and am an "outsider" in L2, I want to confirm whether my reading of the literature is accurate or whether I am just being selective in my reading.

Any assistance that you can provide would be much appreciated.

Thank you,

Richard

Richard Sparks

Mount St Joseph University

Hi Everyone (esp. colleagues working in the fields of Foreign language education and second language acquisition research),

I am posting here two questions here from Prof. Richard Sparks (Mount St Joseph University) about the research traditions for Individual Differences in language learning.

First, does anyone know of a recent book or comprehensive literature review on the topic of Individual Differences (IDs) in language learning. I have the books or reviews by Ellis (2003), Dornyei (2005), Dornyei and Skehan (2003), Robinson (2002), as well as several others. But when searching the literature, I have not yet found anything more recent, say after 2009-10. I have the book from the 2011 conference in the Netherlands, our chapters from our recent conference in Macau (Wen, Skehan, Biedron, Li & Sparks, 2018), and Hulstijn's book. The latter three books focus mostly on language aptitude and language variables. Do you know of something that has been published recently?

Second, in my work, I move back and forth between reading foreign language education research in the states and SLA research. The former research discusses language variables in L2 learning but also focuses extensively on affective and social variables (motivation, anxiety, learning strategies, learning styles, learner beliefs, etc.). In fact, the foreign language education research here does not focus heavily on language aptitude and language variables as explanations for IDs in L2 learning. However, SLA research appears to focus more on aptitude and cognitive variables for IDs in L2 learning. Is this a fair characterization of these two different fields of inquiry (SLA vs. FL education)? If so, is it fair to speculate that SLA research has "moved on" from affective and social variables as primary areas of interest in L2 learning and instead the field is focusing more (albeit not exclusively) on language aptitude and other cognitive (e.g., working memory) variables? Since I also write and focus heavily on L1 research and am an "outsider" in L2, I want to confirm whether my reading of the literature is accurate or whether I am just being selective in my reading.

Any assistance that you can provide would be much appreciated.

Thank you, Richard

Richard Sparks

Mount St Joseph University

I am currently wrapping up a chapter on 'Working memory as language aptitude: the Phonological/Executive Model', in which I develop the argument based on previous research that phonological WM (PWM) is a language acquisition device that subserves L2 knowledge of vocabulary, formulaic sequences (formula), and morpho-syntactic constructions; while executive WM is a language processing device that regulates and coordinates attentional resources during L2 comprehension and production activities (esp. online and offline processes during the four sub-skills of L2 listening, speaking, reading, and writing) (more can be seen in Wen, 2015, 2016)..

Meanwhile, I also argue that it is better to implement separate WM span tasks for PWM and EWM, such that, the simple (storage-only) version of memory span tasks (e.g., the digit span, nonword span etc.), while complex (storage plus processing) span tasks (e.g., reading span task, operation span task...) should be used to measure EWM (Wen, 2012 & 2014).

These are old stuff, I am also arguing that future EWM tests should focus on more fine-grained (secondary) mechanisms and executive functions of WM. In this case, following Miyake & Friedman (2012), EWM can be demarcated into information updating, task switching, and inhibitory control. I wonder, if anyone can give me more insights, if we want to adopt well-established tasks to measure each of these executive functions in a second language/bilingualism contexts. In other words, what might be the most well-established tasks? The recent paper by Indrarathne & Kormos (2018) has provided a nice reference and a good example. Still, I wish to check if there are other key references that I can refer to (esp from cognitive psychology or psycholinguistics). For now, I am arguing for adopting the 'Running memory span' task (Bunting et al., 2006) or the 'Keep track task' for measuring updating; Task switching numbers (Linck et al., 2013) or the 'Plus minus task' for measuring task switching; Antisacade or the Stroop task for measuring inhibitory control. How would these sound (advantages and disadvantages?).

Shall be very grateful if anyone can offer me some insights or refer me to some key references (I've got some in my own repertoire of references provided in other projects, which is available for all to download), but still wish to hear more for my consideration.

Thanks in advance for your input!

Edward