1. Levels of Processing Effects in Bilinguals Recognition Memory Marisela Gutierrez Thesis Director: Dr. Francis, Ph.D. University of Texas at El Paso Supported by a Teachers for a New Era Mini-Grant

2. Purpose Study the effects of levels of processing in bilinguals’ recognition memory based on their dominant and non-dominant languages.

3. Introduction Bilinguals’ recognition memory has not been well studied. We can think of working in the non-dominant language as working with less attention or with less familiar words. Bilinguals’ recognition memory can be understood by the effects of divided attention and word frequency on memory recognition.

4. Levels of Processing Memory storage varies in how deeply the items are processed. Deep processing- thinking about the meaning Shallow processing- visual features (e.g. vowels) The deeper the level of processing, the higher the probability that the information will be later retrieved.

5. Divided attention effect on recognition Memory performance is reduced. LOP effect is reduced. Word frequency effect on recognition Better memory performance for low frequency words. LOP effect stronger for low frequency words. Previous Studies

6. Predictions Based on effects of divided attention: Memory performance was expected to be lower in the less fluent language. LOP effect was expected to be weaker in the less fluent language. Based on effects of word frequency: Memory performance was expected to be better in the less fluent language. LOP effect was expected to be stronger in the less fluent language.

7. Method Participants Middle school students from TexPrep summer Program. N= 46 bilinguals. Average age= 14 UTEP students N= 64 bilinguals. Average age= 20

8. Design 2 (language) x 3 (encoding condition) Languages: English and Spanish Encoding conditions: deep, shallow and not studied. Dependent variable: recognition performance and response time.

9. Materials TexPrep students Instruction sheet Study sheet Recognition sheet Language Background questionnaire UTEP students Consent form PsyScope program Language background questionnaire

10. Procedure Study phase 54 words “NP” – natural or made by people “#V” – count the number of vowels Recognition phase 108 words 2 studied sets + 2 unstudied sets Different procedures

11. Hit and false alarm rates.0.2.4.6.8 1.0 DominantNon- dominant Proportion YES Responses Deep Shallow Not studied Language Hit Rates and False Alarm Rates.0.2.4.6.8 1.0 DominantNon- dominant Language Deep Shallow Not studied Proportion YES responses TexPrep studentsUTEP students

12. Signal detection analysis TexPrep students

13. Signal detection analysis UTEP students

14. Response times (UTEP students) Mean Response Times.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 DominantNon-dominant Language Response time (ms) Deep Shallow

15. Summary of results The TexPrep students performed better in the dominant language, but UTEP students did not show a language effect. The level of processing effects were significant for both groups in both languages. Levels of processing did not interact with languages.

16. Discussion Memory performance in bilinguals less fluent language cannot be adequately explained by either divided attention or by low word frequency. For future research, factors like type of materials and environment may be addressed.

17. Summary Table-TexPrep LanguageCondition % “yes” responses Corrected recognition d’ L1Deep82.3%75.9%2.8 Shallow54.6%48.2%1.8 False alarm 6.4% L2Deep75.7%67.1%2.3 Shallow49.8%41.2%1.6 False alarm 8.6% Table 1. Recognition performance of TexPrep students as function of language condition

18. Summary Table-UTEP LanguageCondition % “yes” responses Corrected recognition d’ RT L1Deep85.9%75.7%2.6 967 Shallow63.4%53.1%1.8 1155 False alarm 10.3% L2Deep87.8%77.6%2.7 1006 Shallow64.4%54.2%1.8 1161 False alarm 10.2% Table 2. Recognition performance of UTEP students as function of language condition