Aptitude

Mahsa FarahanyniaPhD studentAllameh Tabataba'iUniversity

Why is it that people differ so greatly in their ability to learn L2?

Do certain people have a knack for learning L2?

language learning aptitude

What is aptitude

Carroll (1981) defines general aptitude as “Capability of

learning a task’, which depends on ‘some combination

of more or less enduring characteristics of the learner”.

What is language aptitude?

Language aptitude is the capability involving a special propensity for learning an L2 (Carroll, 1981) or “a general ability to learn languages” (Nunan, 2001, p.301), and a complex of “basic abilities that are essential to facilitate foreign language learning”(Carroll & Sapon, 1959, p.14).

Role of aptitude in L2 proficiency

Aptitude measures are strongly correlated with L2 proficiency

(Carroll, 1981; Dekeysser, 2000; Ehrman &Oxford, 1995; Ellis,

2012).

In Gardern and MacIntyre’s words: “research makes it clear that

in the long run language aptitude is probably the single best

predictor of achievement in a second language” (1992, p. 215).

Carroll’s claims about aptitude and L2 proficiency

1) Aptitude is separate from achievement: Conceptually and empirically speaking, there is no relationship between measures of aptitude and measure of proficiency at the beginning of a language program, but that there is a relationship at the end of the program.

2) Aptitude must be shown to be separate from motivation: Gardner (1985) has consistently shown that aptitude and motivation are separate factors, and in his Socio-Educational Model of L2 learning depicts his claims visually.

Carroll’s claims about aptitude and L2 proficiency (cont.)

3) Aptitude must be seen as a stable factor, perhaps even innate: Carroll refers to studies which show that learner’s aptitude is difficult to alter through training.

4) Aptitude is to be viewed not as a prerequisite for L2 acquisition: All learner’s irrespective of their aptitude may achieve a reasonable level of proficiency. But aptitude can be taken as a capacity that enhances the rate and ease of learning.

Carroll’s claims about aptitude and L2 proficiency (cont.)

5) Aptitude must be found to be distinct from general intelligence: Aptitude is a special propensity or knack for learning a foreign language. Intelligence has a broader meaning, referring to a general sort of aptitude that is not limited to a specific performance area but is transferable to many sorts of performanc.

Both intelligence and language aptitude involve a range of cognitive factors some of which, but not all, clearly overlap. We can expect considerable but not perfect correlation between the two higher-order factors.

They overlap in linguistic ability but less related in memory and phonemic coding ability.

Carroll’s factors of language aptitude Involving more in psychology and learning and adopting componential nature and

modular form of aptitude, Carroll (1981, p.105) introduces four abilities for language aptitude:

1. Phonemic coding ability (the most important one):An ability to identify distinct sounds to form associations between these sounds representing them, and to retain these associations” (involving coding, assimilation, and remembering of phonetic material)

2. Grammatical sensitivity: The ability to recognize the grammatical functions of words (or other linguistic entities) in sentence structures” (awareness of grammatical relationship)

3. Inductive language learning ability: The ability to infer or induce the rules governing a set of language materials, given samples of language materials that permit such inferences” (identifying patterns and relationships involving grammatical form and meaning).

4. Rote learning ability: The ability to learn association between sounds and meanings rapidly and efficiently to retain those associations”(remembering large amounts of L2 materials)

Pimsleur’s Factors of language aptitude Involving more in linguistics, Pimsleur (1966) conceptualized the

aptitude for learning a modern language in terms of three factors:

1) Verbal intelligence: That is the knowledge of words and ability to reason analytically in using verbal materials”

2) Motivation3) Auditory ability: The ability to receive and process information

through the ear.

Dornyie (2005)

Pimsleur’s verbal intelligence = Carroll’s grammatical sensitivity

Pimsleur’s Auditory ability = Carroll’s phonetic coding ability

Foreign language aptitude and SLA

The majority of studies focus on aptitude and L2 proficiency rather than on the role of aptitude in cognitive processes involved in L2 acquisition (which is related to SLA).

Second language learning aptitude is viewed as “strengths individual learners have…in the cognitive abilities and information processing during L2 learning and performance in various contexts and at different stages” (Robinson, 2005, p. 46).

In SLA, the relationship of aptitude to learning under different conditions of instructional exposure is important.

According to Ellis (2012), the following issues should be considered:

1. Is language aptitude relevant to informal (naturalistic) as well as formal language learning?

Krashen (1981): L2 aptitude is related to learning and explicit L2 knowledge.

Ellis (2012): L2 aptitude is related to both formal and informal learning.

Grigorenko, Sternberg, and Ehrman (2000): Linguistic-analytic ability is related to formal learning and phonemic coding and memory abilities to informal learning.

Gradner (1985): L2 aptitude is directly related to formal leaning and indirectly to informal learning (Socio-Educational Model of L2 learning).

In formal settings, the input is organized in a way to make its structure more accessible (input flooding or input enhancement) so aptitude is less important; but in informal learning, it is incumbent on the learner to bring structure to unstructured material, so aptitude is more important.

2. Is language aptitude best viewed as a cumulative aggregation of abilities or as differentiated, affording more than one route to success?

Skehan (1986): The extent to which the effect of aptitude is to be viewed ‘globally’ as the aggregation of aptitude strengths in different components, or ‘differentially’ with learners finding different routes to success in language learning.

He distinguished analytic-oriented leaners (who focus on the development of rule-based system and have great verbal analyzability aptitude) and memory-oriented learners (who focus on the real-time performance and fluency and have high memory accessibility aptitude). Both types can achieve high levels of success.

3. Is there any relationship between L1 language skills and second language aptitude? Studies shows that those with strong L1 skills were also strong in L2 aptitude. In their linguistic coding difference hypothesis (LCDH), Sparks and Ganschow (2001) claim that one’s capacity to learn an L2 is closely related to the individual’s L1 learning skill and L2 learning difficulties stem in part from native language difficulties.

4. To what extent is language aptitude immutable or responsive to training? There is no conclusive findings. Some found it is responsive to training (e.g., Sparks, Ganschow, Fluharty, and Little, 1995), and some found it is immutable (e.g., Sawyer, 1992).

5. To what extent and in what ways language aptitude related to the processes of L2 acquisition?

The focus here is on the role of aptitude in facilitating, or inhibiting cognitive processes drawn on during L2 learning under particular learning conditions, from FonF techniques, or task manipulations.

Aptitude and Current SLA ResearchSkehan’s process-sensitive aptitude Skehan (1998) makes an attempt to relate three aptitude

components to the different phases of the SLA process:

1. Auditory ability (phonetic coding ability): This allows the learner to process input more readily and thus to get to more complex areas of processing more easily. It provides processable input and comprehensible input for the next stage of processing

Skehan’s process-sensitive aptitude (Cont.)

2. Linguistic ability (Inductive language learning ability + Grammatical sensitivity): The capacity to infer rules of language and make generalization and extrapolations. The input of this stage is the product of the phonemic coding stage.

(grammatical sensitivity) (inductive language learning ability)Word pattern Implicit explicitPassive (recognition) active (construction)

Skehan’s process-sensitive aptitude (Cont.)

3. Memory ability (rote learning ability): It deals with the acquisition of new information, their storage, and retrieval. The emphasis is on how memory ‘items’ can be retrieved efficiently in real-time to handle conversational demands (fast-access memory system).

Relation of three components of aptitude to macro stages in SLA:

SLA stages Aptitude components Input Auditory ability

Central processing Linguistic abilityOutput Memory ability

SLA stages and aptitude constructs (Skehan, 1998)

SLA stages and aptitude constructs

Noticing: Difference in noticing relevant qualities of input (due to having better working memory, or being field independent).

Pattern identification: Difference in pattern extraction capacities and generalization

Pattern restructuring and manipulation (anti-fossilization stage of development): Difference in changing the existing rules in interlanguage

Pattern control: Difference in having control over an emerging IL (Focus is on accuracy and automaticization in production)

Pattern integration (more production oriented): Difference in producing a pattern (lexicalized chunks) that can be accessed as a whole based on formulaic piece of language (Focus is on routinazation).

Skehan’s process-sensitive aptitude (Cont.)

Regarding phonemic coding ability, at elementary stages it is the most important component, but in later stages it loses its importance.

Regarding memory, it gains more and more prominence as the level of proficiency increases for the purpose of having native-like selection and native-like fluency (enriching the exemplar-based system and idiomatic language)

Language analytic ability is equally important in all stages and has a linear relationship with proficiency level (enriching rule-based system)

Language = language analytic abilityPhonemic = phonemic coding abilityD = unusual neurological conditions

The relationship between aptitude components and proficiency level

Robinson’s aptitude complex/ability differentiation framework (2001, 2005)

Aptitude complex hypothesis: Learning draws on different combinations of cognitive abilities (Snow’s aptitude complexes) depending on the conditions of instructional exposure (Cronbakh’s aptitude-treatment interaction approach). In other words, different learners with different aptitude clusters will respond to different instructional treatments differentially.

Focus: situational dependence of aptitude and the interaction between aptitude and situational variable (e.g., type of instruction, types of tasks) (Dornyie, 2005)

Aptitudes, development, and learning contexts(Robinson, 2005)

Interaction between task demands, language aptitude, and language learning

Robinson’s aptitude complex hypothesis (Cont.)

Abilities(inner circle, initial input-based learning): Processing Speed (PS); Pattern recognition (PR); Phonological Working Memory Capacity (PWMC); Phonological Working Memory Speed (PWMS); Semantic Priming (SP); Lexical Inferencing (IN); Text Working Memory Capacity (TWMC); Text Working Memory Speed (TWMS); Grammatical Sensitivity (GS); Rote Memory (RM)

Aptitude Complexes(second circle, input-based learning): Noticing the Gap (NTG); Memory for Contingent Speech (MCS); Deep Semantic Processing (DSP); Memory for Contingent Text (MCT); Metalinguistic Rule Rehearsal (MRR)

Robinson’s aptitude complex hypothesis (Cont.)

Task Aptitudes(third circle, output practice and complex task performance): Single Task (+/- ST); Planning Time (+/- PT); Background Knowledge (+/- BK); Here-and-Now (+/- H&N); Few Elements (+/- FE); Reasoning (+/- R); Open Task (+/- O); 1-Way Task (+/- 1way); Convergent Task (+/- CON); Same Gender Participants (+/- SG); Same Proficiency Participants (+/- SP); Familiar Participants (+/- FAM)

Pragmatic/Interactional Abilities/Traits(fourth circle, transfer of task performance to real-world interactive settings): Interactional Intelligence (II); Self Presentation/Impression Management (SP/IM); Mind Reading (MR ); Pragmatic Ability (PA); Social Insight (SI); Emotional Intelligence (EI); Self-Efficacy (SE); Openness to Experience (OTE); Gesture Reading (GR); Nonverbal Sensitivity (NVS )

Aptitude and Awareness

If “noticing” and awareness are necessary for SLA then an issue for aptitude research is to identify individual differences in abilities that promote them across a range of pedagogically relevant conditions of exposure to the L2.

Processing input for meaning creates no opportunities for rote memorization or for the intentional application of explicit metalinguistic knowledge to input (no awareness). However, it does draw on the ability to process for meaning while simultaneously switching attention to form during problems in semantic processing—an ability strongly related to working memory capacity.

Aptitude and working memory “Working memory capacity may be the key to elaborating the concept of

language aptitude itself and to clarifying its relationship with the second language acquisition (SLA) process.” (Sawyer & Ranta, 2001, p. 340)

Miyake and Friedman (1998) proposed the “working memory as language aptitude” hypothesis, claiming that working memory may be the central component of language aptitude.

Baddeley and Hitch (1974)Phonological loop: phonological store+ articulatory rehearsal process

Aptitude and Focus on Form (FonF) Techniques

FonF Techniques: Different kinds of intervention (such as input flooding, input enhancement, recasting, structured input processing with and without rule explanation) that aim to direct learner’s attention to L2 form during activities which have a primary focus on meaning.

Dornyie & Skehan, (2003): Aptitude may be a central construct when there is a focus on form in SLA.

Mixed results about the effect of FonF instruction: Since some L2 learners’ aptitudes, or sets of abilities are more suited to learning from one FonF technique versus another (Robinson, 2005).

Aptitude and Task Design

Aptitude may interact with L2 task characteristics with differential information processing demands (such as single versus dual task) to systematically affect speech production, uptake and learning, such that one type of learner may be systematically more fluent, more accurate, or notice and use more new information provided in the task input, on one type of task versus another.

It leads to L2 task-aptitude profiles that can be used to maximize on-task practice, and learning opportunities for learners

Instruments used to measure aptitude

a) First test design period of 1920/1930: Prognostic tests with no firm theoretical foundation (Spolsky, 1995)

b) Golden period of scientific language aptitude testing(Carroll, 1981)

1) The modern language aptitude test (MLAT) (Carroll & Sapon 1959)

2) The Pimsleur language aptitude battery (PLAB, 1966)

3) Cognitive ability for novelty in acquisition of language as applied to foreign language test (CANAL-FT) by Grigorenko, et al. (2000)

The Modern language Aptitude Test (MALT) It was developed by Carroll and Sapon (1959) who followed a

“Psychometric approach” and administered it to 5000 persons.

Carroll and Sapon’s MLAT does not include separate measure of inductive language learning ability, perhaps this is very close to grammatical sensitivity.

It is comprised of the following sections: Number learning, Phonetic script, Spelling clues, Words in sentences, Paired associates.

The Pimsleur language aptitude battery (PLAB) It was developed as an alternative to MLAT, measures a very

similar range of abilities to MLAT, but has no test of verbal memory.

Greater emphasis on auditory factors, and less on memory

PLAB is composed of six parts: Grade point Average, Vocabulary, Interest in foreign language learning, Language analysis, Sound discrimination, Sound symbol of association

Cognitive ability for novelty in acquisition of language as applied to foreign language test (CANAL-FT)

Unlike MALT and PLAB, it is theory-driven and based on Sternberg’s (2002) triadic theory of human intelligence (theory of successful intelligence).

Main focus: How people cope with novelty and ambiguity in their learning.

Five knowledge acquisition processes: Selective encoding, accidental encoding, selective comparison, selective transfer, selective combination

Operationalized at four language level (lexical, morphological, semantics, and syntactic) and in two modes (visual and oral)

Assessed based on immediate recall or delayed recall

Drawbacks of such tests (Harmer, 2007; Skehan, 1998; Dornyie, 2005) Simply reflect the general intelligence or academic ability of a student

even though they ostensibly look for linguistic talents. Just focus on the ability to perform analytical and context-reduced

activities and hardly deal with the kinds of learning strategies and styles which are central to the acquisition of communicative competence in context-embedded situations (more associated with audio-lingual method).

They favor analytic-type learner over their more ‘holistic’ counterparts (grammar focused tasks).

Such tests can bias both teachers and learners and a self-fulfilling prophecy may occur (it may lead to the demotivation of students with low scores and to their failure as well as to the special treatment of teachers towards students with high scores). It is better to be optimistic.

They do not predict the very high levels of attainment or do not measure the ability to profit from incidental L2 exposure.

Applications of aptitude research

Aptitude-treatment-interaction (ATI) research designs: There is no single best method but that it is the combination of specific method type with specific aptitude profile which creates optimal leaning condition.

The constructs underlying aptitude should connect with what goes on in the classroom, which requires profile-based information of students’ aptitude for the design of effective interventionist techniques

Future path of research

Future path:

1. Investigating the influence of cognitive skills associated with L1 learning on the capacity to learn an L2 (Sparks and Ganschow’s LCDH proposal)

2. Exploring the role of working memory in SLA and language aptitude complex (Mtyake and Friedman’s working-memory-as-language-aptitude proposal)

3. Exploring aptitude measures in combination with other ID variables in various trait complexes (Robinson’s proposal)

4. Scrutinizing the link between certain aptitude components with specific phases of the SLA processes (Skehan’s proposal)

References Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The

psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

Carroll, J.B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In K.C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Carroll, J.B., & Sapon, S. (1959). The modern language aptitude test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Dekeysser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22 (4), 493-533.

Dornyie, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual difference in second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dornyie, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long, The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). UK : Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

References Ehrman, M.E., & Oxford, R.L., (1995). Cognition plus: correlates of language

learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79 (1), 313-330. Ellis, R. (2012). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of

attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardern R.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (1992). A students’ contributions to second

language learning. Part I: Cognitive variables. Language Testing, 25, 211-220. Grigorenko, E., Sternberg, R., & Ehrman M.E. (2000). A theory based approach to

the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84 (3), 390-405.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Harlow: Longman.

References Krashen (1981). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language

acquisition and learning. In K.C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Miyake, A. & N. P. Friedman (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (eds.), Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention, (pp. 339-364). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pimsleur, P. (1966). The Pimsleur language aptitude battery. NewYork: Harcourt,Brace, Jovanovic.

Robinson (1995). Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331

Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368-392.

References Robinson, (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review

of Applied Linguistics (2005) 25, 46–73. Sawyer, M. (1992). Language aptitude and language experience: Are they

related? The Language Programs of the International University of Japan Working Papers, 3, 27-45.

Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (1986). Cluster analysis and the identification of learner types. In V. Cook (ed.), Experimental Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 81-94.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sparks, R.L., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a forging language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90-111.

Thanks for your attention