Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working memory is a cognitive device for simultaneous information storage and processing in ongoing learning tasks or events. Current theories of second language acquisition (SLA) posit a central role of interactive tasks in facilitating the process and outcome of second language development. The mechanism of working memory is a perfect match for the mechanism of learning that occurs in second language (L2) interaction. This chapter seeks to synthesize the literature on the relationship between working memory and L2 interaction including theoretical models and findings of empirical research. To achieve these objectives, the chapter starts with a discussion of major SLA theories that elaborate the relevance of working memory to L2 interaction including the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), the Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2011), and the Limited Attentional Capacity Theory (Skehan, 1998). The chapter proceeds to review the various streams of research investigating the associations between working memory and (1) interactional behaviors, (2) task performance represented by the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 speech, and (3) interaction-driven L2 gains. The chapter then concludes by identifying the strengths and limitations of existing research and recommending ways to address issues and advance the field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".