Working Memory, Background Knowledge, and L2 Linguistic Knowledge in L2 Literal and Inferential Reading

This study investigates how working memory (WM) capacity and L2 linguistic knowledge affect L2 literal and inferential reading comprehension, considering the presence or absence of background knowledge. Eighty upper-intermediate to advanced adult English learners participated, completing tasks to assess WM capacity, background knowledge, L2 linguistic knowledge, and reading comprehension (both literal and inferential). Stepwise regression analyses revealed that WM capacity had a stronger influence on both literal and inferential comprehension when background knowledge was absent. For literal comprehension, L2 linguistic knowledge was the sole predictor when background knowledge was present, while WM capacity dominated in its absence. Inferential comprehension was consistently predicted by WM capacity, regardless of background knowledge. These findings indicate that WM capacity and L2 linguistic knowledge influence L2 reading comprehension differently depending on background knowledge and the type of comprehension. Implications include incorporating WM training into L2 reading instruction and employing diverse WM assessment methods to measure WM independently of L2 linguistic proficiency.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
English Teaching
Published
2024-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.79.4.202412.269
Primary Topic
Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Working Memory, Background Knowledge, and L2 Linguistic Knowledge in L2 Literal and Inferential Reading

Naeun Kwon
English Teaching
Second Language Acquisition and Learning
article

Working Memory, Background Knowledge, and L2 Linguistic Knowledge in L2 Literal and Inferential Reading

Naeun Kwon
article en

Abstract

This study investigates how working memory (WM) capacity and L2 linguistic knowledge affect L2 literal and inferential reading comprehension, considering the presence or absence of background knowledge. Eighty upper-intermediate to advanced adult English learners participated, completing tasks to assess WM capacity, background knowledge, L2 linguistic knowledge, and reading comprehension (both literal and inferential). Stepwise regression analyses revealed that WM capacity had a stronger influence on both literal and inferential comprehension when background knowledge was absent. For literal comprehension, L2 linguistic knowledge was the sole predictor when background knowledge was present, while WM capacity dominated in its absence. Inferential comprehension was consistently predicted by WM capacity, regardless of background knowledge. These findings indicate that WM capacity and L2 linguistic knowledge influence L2 reading comprehension differently depending on background knowledge and the type of comprehension. Implications include incorporating WM training into L2 reading instruction and employing diverse WM assessment methods to measure WM independently of L2 linguistic proficiency.

English TeachingVol. 79(4)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Second Language Acquisition and Learning
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.