Working memory (WM)

The present study intended to examine the relationship between working memory (WM) and writing performance of a group of Iranian EFL learners and to explore whether learners with different working memory levels perform differently on the fluency, accuracy and complexity of texts produced or not. The necessary data were collected through the argumentative essay writing prompt and a computerized Persian version of reading span test as a measure of learners’ WM capacity. The correlation analysis revealed that there was a significant positive relationship between these two constructs. The results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) indicated that there were significant differences between High, Mid and Low WM groups in terms of fluency and accuracy of texts produced, but not their complexity. The findings confirmed the importance of WM while working on cognitively challenging tasks such as writing which requires automation and effective management of cognitive resources while writing. On the whole, the present study confirmed the idea that learners with different learning characteristics orchestrate their mental resources in different ways to perform in different phases of writing and part of their difficulties or even capabilities in writing can be attributed to the efficiency with which they apply these resources while dealing with different writing systems (formulation, execution, or monitoring) or engaging in different writing  processes (translating, planning, programming, reading, or editing).

Given the seemingly important link between children’s working memory (WM) and their scholastic performance, it would be a worthwhile research enquiry to explore language learning as one potential way to improve WM. To this end, the present study examined the impact of two language teaching paradigms, namely, Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) and Total Physical Response (TPR), on children’s WM over time. Seventy participants, aged 8 to 9 years, were administered tests of phonological, visuo-spatial sketchpad and central executive components, and made up TPR, PPP and control groups for a period of three months. Then, a posttest and a delayed posttest were administered to identify whether the treatments led to significant improvements. The results of the 3 WM measures indicated that the 2 interventions led to certain improvements. Whereas TPR led to significant improvements in the central executive, PPP produced significantly higher gains in phonological memory over time. Neither treatment induced any positive impact on the visuospatial sketchpad. The results lend evidence to the trainability of WM. It is also suggested that language learning experiences have long-lasting repercussions and that each language learning experience can impact certain components of WM.