The Role of Task-Essential Training and Working Memory in Offline and Online Morphological Processing

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of task-essential training on offline and online processing of verbal morphology and explores how working memory (WM) modulates the effects of training. We compare a no-training control group to two training groups who completed a multisession task-essential training focused on Spanish verbal inflections related to person–number agreement and tense. Effects of training were evaluated using an offline aural interpretation task and an online self-paced reading (SPR) assessment, administered as a pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. Results showed that training led to more accurate interpretation of both person-number and tense information in the offline interpretation test. While higher WM was associated generally with greater accuracy, higher WM did not lead to greater gains from training. The SPR results showed that training did not increase sensitivity to subject–verb agreement or adverb–verb tense violations. However, among participants who underwent training, WM enhanced sensitivity under some conditions. These results demonstrate a role for individual differences in WM for offline and online processing, and they suggest that while task-essential training has been shown repeatedly to improve offline processing of target forms, its effects on online processing of redundant verbal morphology are more limited. Implications for L2 learning are discussed.

The offline and online effects of processing instruction

“…Lee and Doherty (2019) found that PI directed learners' attention to grammatical information on Spanish verbs marked for the passive voice and noted that learners' processing became more native-like after instruction. However, other studies have found mixed results or shown that training had no effect on online processing (Dracos & Henry, 2021;Ito & Wong, 2019;McManus & Marsden, 2017). For example, Dracos & Henry (2021) found that a PI-like training did not increase sensitivity to grammatical violations for Spanish subject and tense morphology.…”

“…However, other studies have found mixed results or shown that training had no effect on online processing (Dracos & Henry, 2021;Ito & Wong, 2019;McManus & Marsden, 2017). For example, Dracos & Henry (2021) found that a PI-like training did not increase sensitivity to grammatical violations for Spanish subject and tense morphology. McManus and Marsden (2017) found no changes in online processing behavior for the French Imparfait when learners received training in the L2 only.…”

“…Studies on PI and related instructional trainings that employ online processing measures are still relatively few (see Benati, 2020b), but several recent studies have used these methods given the detail they provide. As discuss, these studies have investigated a diverse range of questions, including the effects of PI (or related trainings) versus other types of instruction or no-training controls (Benati, 2020c(Benati, , 2020aChiuchiù & Benati, 2020;Issa & Morgan-Short, 2019;McManus & Marsden, 2017Wong & Ito, 2018); EI and feedback (Dracos & Henry, 2018;Wong & Ito, 2018), input enhancement (Issa & Morgan-Short, 2019), the modality of training (Ito & Wong, 2019), and the role of individual differences such as working memory (Dracos & Henry, 2021;Issa, 2019;.…”

“…It is also important to note that these studies have used a variety of methodological approaches. For example, many studies employ eye-tracking (e.g., Issa & Morgan-Short, 2019;Ito & Wong, 2019;Wong & Ito, 2018), but some use SPR (Dracos & Henry, 2021;Malovrh et al, 2020;McManus & Marsden, 2017). Further, some studies measure online processing during the training task itself (e.g., Benati, 2020c;Issa et al, 2015;Wong & Ito, 2018), meaning that reported changes in processing could be related directly to either the task itself or the provision of feedback during these tasks (or both).…”

“…For example, Wong and Ito (2018) used a forced choice task in both the PI training and in the eyetracking task, although the eye-tracking task used a different modality (graphic rather than text-based) and did not provide feedback. Some studies, on the contrary, have tested sensitivity to the target form after training using tasks that are quite different from the training, such as SPR (Dracos & Henry, 2021;McManus & Marsden, 2017. While the former approaches show how PI affects processing in these specific tasks, the latter approach could provide critical evidence about how the effects of PI generalize to other types of processing tasks.…”