東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back to Search results for [ null ]

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Pushing for processing: The roles of...

Mercer, Johnathan D.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Pushing for processing: The roles of depth of processing, working memory, and reactivity on comprehension.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Pushing for processing: The roles of depth of processing, working memory, and reactivity on comprehension./
Author:	Mercer, Johnathan D.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2015,
Description:	285 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-09(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International76-09A(E).
Subject:	Linguistics. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3700845
ISBN:	9781321710052

Pushing for processing: The roles of depth of processing, working memory, and reactivity on comprehension.
Mercer, Johnathan D.

Pushing for processing: The roles of depth of processing, working memory, and reactivity on comprehension. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2015 - 285 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-09(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgetown University, 2015.

VanPatten's (1996, 2004) Primacy of Meaning Principle claims that second language learners process for meaning before they process for form. Previous research has empirically tested this principle with varied results (Greenslade, Bowden, & Sanz, 1999; Leow, Hsieh, & Moreno, 2008; Morgan-Short, Heil, Botero-Moriarty, & Ebert, 2012; VanPatten, 1990; Wong, 2001). In each of these studies, attention to form has been operationalized either by circling the specific forms (for the reading modality, e.g., Greenslade et al., 1999; Leow et al, 2008; Wong, 2001) or by placing a check mark on a piece of paper (for the aural modality, e.g., VanPatten, 1990; Wong, 2001). As Leow et al. (2008) note, in their study, this resulted in a low level of processing that may not have been sufficient to have the detrimental effect on meaning postulated in the Primacy of Meaning Principle. Morgan-Short et al. (2012), who conceptually replicated Leow et al. (2008) with the addition of a Non-Think-Aloud group and a larger group of participants, found that level of processing was positively related to comprehension. Nonetheless, as they coded for processing after the experiment was over, their processing conditions were not random, and the potential for mediating variables to have played a role cannot be excluded. One such variable may be working memory, as this variable has been found to be related to reading comprehension (e.g., Harrington & Sawyer, 1992), the assessment task, and multitask performance (e.g., Konig, Buhner, & Murling, 2005). In this study, I randomly assigned participants to six groups, partitioned by Depth of Processing (DP), which included three depths, and the Think-Aloud vs. Non-Think-Aloud groups (TANTA). Data gathered revealed that processing for form at the depth of interpreting negatively affected L2 comprehension. Positive reactivity was also found. No evidence was found to support a role for amount of processing, a relationship between working memory capacity (WMC) and comprehension, or any interaction between the three main variables (DP, WMC, TANTA). The negative impact of processing for form at the depth of interpreting on L2 reading comprehension supports VanPatten's (2004) Primacy of Meaning Principle.

ISBN: 9781321710052Subjects--Topical Terms:

524476
Linguistics.

Pushing for processing: The roles of depth of processing, working memory, and reactivity on comprehension.
LDR:03181nmm a2200289 4500 001 2120178
005 20170705093024.5
008 180830s2015 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781321710052
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3700845
035 $a AAI3700845
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Mercer, Johnathan D. $3 3282084
245 1 0 $a Pushing for processing: The roles of depth of processing, working memory, and reactivity on comprehension.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2015
300 $a 285 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-09(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Ronald P. Leow.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgetown University, 2015.
520 $a VanPatten's (1996, 2004) Primacy of Meaning Principle claims that second language learners process for meaning before they process for form. Previous research has empirically tested this principle with varied results (Greenslade, Bowden, & Sanz, 1999; Leow, Hsieh, & Moreno, 2008; Morgan-Short, Heil, Botero-Moriarty, & Ebert, 2012; VanPatten, 1990; Wong, 2001). In each of these studies, attention to form has been operationalized either by circling the specific forms (for the reading modality, e.g., Greenslade et al., 1999; Leow et al, 2008; Wong, 2001) or by placing a check mark on a piece of paper (for the aural modality, e.g., VanPatten, 1990; Wong, 2001). As Leow et al. (2008) note, in their study, this resulted in a low level of processing that may not have been sufficient to have the detrimental effect on meaning postulated in the Primacy of Meaning Principle. Morgan-Short et al. (2012), who conceptually replicated Leow et al. (2008) with the addition of a Non-Think-Aloud group and a larger group of participants, found that level of processing was positively related to comprehension. Nonetheless, as they coded for processing after the experiment was over, their processing conditions were not random, and the potential for mediating variables to have played a role cannot be excluded. One such variable may be working memory, as this variable has been found to be related to reading comprehension (e.g., Harrington & Sawyer, 1992), the assessment task, and multitask performance (e.g., Konig, Buhner, & Murling, 2005). In this study, I randomly assigned participants to six groups, partitioned by Depth of Processing (DP), which included three depths, and the Think-Aloud vs. Non-Think-Aloud groups (TANTA). Data gathered revealed that processing for form at the depth of interpreting negatively affected L2 comprehension. Positive reactivity was also found. No evidence was found to support a role for amount of processing, a relationship between working memory capacity (WMC) and comprehension, or any interaction between the three main variables (DP, WMC, TANTA). The negative impact of processing for form at the depth of interpreting on L2 reading comprehension supports VanPatten's (2004) Primacy of Meaning Principle.
590 $a School code: 0076.
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
650 4 $a Foreign language education. $3 3172512
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0444
710 2 $a Georgetown University. $b Spanish & Portuguese. $3 1037986
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 76-09A(E).
790 $a 0076
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2015
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3700845