Abstract
AbstractThe relationship between working memory (WM) and second-language (L2) reading has been extensively examined, with mixed results. Our meta-analysis models the potential impact of underresearched variables considered to moderate this relationship. Results from 74 studies (228 correlations) showed a significant, small relationship between WM and L2 reading (r = .300). Of the eight moderators examined, the WM–L2 reading relationship differed between studies using first-language (L1) and L2 WM tasks and between studies reporting and not reporting WM task reliability. Methodological features of reading comprehension measures or learners’ proficiency did not moderate the relationship. These results suggest that measurement practices of WM—rather than L2 reading measures or learner characteristics—matter in understanding the WM–L2 reading relationship. Implications and future directions are discussed.
Highlights
Working memory (WM) is related to language processing (e.g., Juffs & Harrington, 2011), for example, when a reader holds earlier parts of incoming information in memory until integrating them with latter parts during reading (e.g., Cowan, 2005)
This study examined the WM–L2 reading comprehension relationship using metaanalysis
For the first research question, regarding the WM–L2 reading relationship, we found a significant, small relationship
Summary
Working memory (WM) is related to language processing (e.g., Juffs & Harrington, 2011), for example, when a reader holds earlier parts of incoming information in memory until integrating them with latter parts during reading (e.g., Cowan, 2005). WM has a limited capacity, leading to trade-off between processing and storage of information (Daneman & Merikle, 1996): Cognitive resources for maintenance are reduced if processing is not automatic or requires longer time. The relationship between WM and reading has been examined in many second-language (L2) studies, with mixed findings and various moderator variables seemingly coming into play (e.g., Juffs & Harrington, 2011; Sagarra, 2017), some of which have not been examined in detail.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
