CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningCognitive Abilities and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Working memory and language aptitude in relation to listening strategy instruction in an instructed SLA context

Duman, Saime Kara, Yalçın, Şebnem, Erçetin, Gülcan·2021·Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
DOI 10.1017/s0267190521000040
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present small-scale study explores whether working memory (WM) and language aptitude (LA) explain any variance in L2 listening comprehension beyond baseline listening ability and explicit strategy-based listening instruction in an instructed EFL setting at the tertiary level. In a pretest/posttest non-randomized group design, the experimental group (N = 19) received explicit strategy-based listening instruction for 12 hours while the control group (N = 17) followed their regular L2 listening course syllabus. L2 listening comprehension was measured with an L2 academic listening comprehension test. WM measures (Foster et al., 2015) included an operation span task (OST), a symmetry span task (SST), and a rotation span task (RST). LA was assessed with LLAMA (Meara, 2005). The findings revealed the effectiveness of strategy-based intervention for L2 listening comprehension. A hierarchical regression analysis indicated that baseline listening scores explained about 52% of the variance in the post-listening scores, while listening strategy instruction explained an additional 16% of the variance. On the other hand, WM and LA did not explain any variance in listening comprehension scores, suggesting that the two individual learner differences in the present study are not significant predictors of L2 listening comprehension.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0267190521000040

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 2001, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
  2. Gu., 2007, Study on the relationship between working memory and EFL listening comprehension, CELEA Journal, 30, 46

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Duman, S. K., Yalçın, Ş., & Erçetin, G.
Affiliations
  • Yıldız Technical University (TR)
  • Boğaziçi University (TR)
Corresponding author
Yalçın, Şebnem
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2021-03
Volume
41
Pages
108-117
ISSN
  • 0267-1905 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6356
DOI
10.1017/s0267190521000040
OpenAlex
W3159794626
Semantic Scholar
bf99f02d584d5374867e3aecd29a3b1f8740c07e
Cited by
10
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 58 d)
Locations
  • Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
  • Yildiz Technical University - AVESIS (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
working memory, language aptitude, listening comprehension, listening strategy instruction, explicit strategy instruction, EFL learners, individual differences, academic listening, operation span, llamas

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review