Abstract
The role of executive functioning in second language (L2) aptitude remains unclear. Whereas some studies report a relationship between working memory (WM) and L2 learning, others have argued against this association. Similarly, being bilingual appears to benefit inhibitory control, and individual differences in inhibitory control are related to online L2 processing. The current longitudinal study examines whether these two components of executive functioning predict learning gains in an L2 classroom context using a pretest/posttest design. We assessed 25 university students in language courses, who completed measures of WM and inhibitory control. They also completed a proficiency measure at the beginning and end of a semester and reported their grade point average (GPA). WM was positively related to L2 proficiency and learning, but inhibitory control was not. These results support the notion that WM is an important component of L2 aptitude, particularly for predicting the early stages of L2 classroom learning.
Highlights
Researchers and practitioners alike have been interested in predicting which learners are likely to succeed in acquiring a foreign language (L2)
It is important to note that the capacity and efficiency of the short-term memory component of working memory (WM), independent of the central executive, are related to several L2 learning outcomes, including vocabulary learning in the lab (Atkins & Baddeley, 1998), vocabulary use and production skill (O’Brien, Segalowitz, Collentine, & Freed, 2006), and oral fluency development (O’Brien, Segalowitz, Freed, & Collentine, 2007), here, we focus exclusively on the central executive component of WM
We found that WM was positively related to L2 proficiency, while inhibitory control did not account for a significant amount of variability
Summary
Researchers and practitioners alike have been interested in predicting which learners are likely to succeed in acquiring a foreign language (L2). The multicomponent model of WM includes a short-term storage component (i.e., slave systems) and an attentional control component known as the central executive (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) These components of WM are correlated, they are empirically and conceptually distinguishable (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999). Not all studies have found a relationship between WM and L2 skills (Chun & Payne, 2004; Mizera, 2006; Taguchi, 2008), a recent meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship between WM and L2 processing and proficiency outcomes estimated a population effect size (ρ) of .255 (Linck, Osthus, Koeth, & Bunting, 2014) These results suggest that individuals with greater WM resources are better equipped to handle the cognitive processing demands of mastering an L2. It is important to note that the capacity and efficiency of the short-term memory component of WM (phonological short-term memory), independent of the central executive, are related to several L2 learning outcomes, including vocabulary learning in the lab (Atkins & Baddeley, 1998), vocabulary use and production skill (O’Brien, Segalowitz, Collentine, & Freed, 2006), and oral fluency development (O’Brien, Segalowitz, Freed, & Collentine, 2007), here, we focus exclusively on the central executive component of WM
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
