Working Memory and Foreign Language Learning: Two Studies Compared
This paper critically compares two studies on the role of working memory in foreign language learning: Kormos and Safar (2008) and Mota (2003). The analysis examines differences in conceptual design, experimental methodology, and results. The Kormos and Safar study is assessed as more rigorously designed, accounting for multiple cognitive variables — including phonological short-term memory, learner proficiency level, and personality — while Mota's study is critiqued for its one-dimensional focus on working memory alone and its use of a word span test that likely introduced extraneous variables. The comparison ultimately highlights how research design choices substantially affect the validity and interpretability of findings in applied linguistics.
- Introduction and Overview: Introduces the two studies being compared
- Differences in Conceptual Design: Contrasts each study's theoretical scope and variable selection
- Differences in Experimental Methodology: Compares test instruments and sampling strategies used
- Results and Conclusions: Evaluates the quality and meaning of each study's findings
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a clear parallel structure to compare two studies across the same analytical categories — conceptual design, methodology, and results — making the argument easy to follow.
- Grounds its critique in specific methodological details (e.g., word span vs. non-word span tests) rather than vague generalizations, lending the analysis credibility.
- Situates the methodological critique within a broader theoretical context, invoking Gardner's multiple intelligences and Levelt's speech production framework to justify its evaluations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative critical analysis: it does not merely summarize the two studies but systematically evaluates each against the same criteria, showing how specific design choices (sampling, test type, variable selection) affect the validity and interpretability of results. This is a strong model for literature-based critique assignments in linguistics and cognitive psychology courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into three substantive sections following a brief orienting introduction. "Differences in Conceptual Design" addresses how each study framed its variables and theoretical scope. "Differences in Experimental Methodology" compares the specific instruments and tests employed. "Results" connects those design differences to the quality and meaning of each study's findings. The reference list closes the paper with two sources cited in APA-adjacent format.
Introduction and Overview
This paper compares two studies on the relationship between memory and foreign language learning: Kormos and Safar (2008) and Mota (2003). The comparison focuses on differences in conceptual design, experimental methodology, and the meaningfulness of each study's results.
Differences in Conceptual Design
The Kormos and Safar study (2008) appears to have been much better designed to produce meaningful results than the Mota study (2003). At the most fundamental level, the Kormos and Safar study manifested an explicit recognition of the degree to which the dependent variable — foreign language learning and performance — is inherently a function of many variables besides memory. In that regard, the study even acknowledged the relevance of variables not traditionally associated with learning, such as those attributable to the expanded definitions of cognitive intelligence advanced by pioneers like Howard Gardner (Kormos & Safar, 2008, p. 261). That study referenced variables as far-removed from memory as temperament and personality (Kormos & Safar, 2008, p. 261).
By contrast, the Mota study (2003) focused exclusively and one-dimensionally on the importance of working memory, seemingly without regard for the complex, multidimensional variables outside of memory that may influence the dependent variables measured — namely, foreign language fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Mota, 2003, p. 69). Furthermore, whereas the Kormos and Safar study (2008) distinguished between the respective roles of working memory and phonological short-term memory in different aspects of language learning, the Mota study (2003) ignored phonological short-term memory altogether from the outset, instead presupposing that any measurable differences in language learning are attributable to differences in working memory alone. Finally, whereas the experimental design devised for the Kormos and Safar study (2008) specifically included both advanced foreign language learners and beginners (Kormos & Safar, 2008, p. 264), the Mota study (2003) used only advanced foreign language learners.
References
Kormos, Judit, and Safar, Anna. "Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning." Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Vol. 11, No. 2; 2008: 261–271.
Mota, Mailce Borges. "Working memory capacity and fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical density in L2 speech production." Florianopolis, Vol. 24; 2003: 69–104.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.