Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T14:26:40.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2010

Robert DeKeyser
By
Peter Robinson
Robert DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Peter Robinson
Affiliation:
Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan
Get access

Summary

Introduction: aptitude – the once and future concept

This chapter is concerned with second language (L2) learning aptitude and the cognitive demands of practice in various instructional contexts. Specifically, it describes recent theories of and research into the structure of cognitive abilities that underlie aptitude. It also describes findings from recent empirical research into the extent to which these abilities are drawn on during practice in performing types of pedagogic tasks, in processing L2 input under conditions of practice that manipulate the focus of attention and intention and in uptake of focus on form delivered during practice on these tasks and under these conditions. Broadly conceived, aptitude for learning from opportunities for practice draws on more than cognitive abilities and involves affective and conative factors which may also be consistent determinants of an individual's engagement with the L2 (Ackerman, 2003; Dörnyei, 2002, 2005; MacIntyre, 2002; Robinson, 2005a; Snow & Farr, 1987). This said, this chapter addresses in detail only cognitive aspects of what Richard Snow (1994) called the cognitive-affective-conative triad of factors contributing to aptitude – focusing on these and their interaction with learning contexts.

Task and situation specificity

Aptitude, Snow argued, “should refer to being equipped to work at a particular kind of task or in a particular kind of situation” (Corno, Cronbach, Kupermintz, Lohman, Mandinach, Porteus, & Talbert, 2002, p. 3). The situation specificity of aptitude was an important aspect of Snow's thinking and that of others (see e.g., Sternberg & Wagner, 1994) and leads to the conclusion, explored in Snow's work (and this chapter), that aptitude is variegated but not so variegated as to be infinite.

Type
Chapter
Information
Practice in a Second Language
Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
 , pp. 256 - 286
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, P. (2003). Aptitude complexes and trait complexes. Educational Psychologist, 38, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, P ., & Ciancolo, A. (2002). Ability and task constraint determinants of complex task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 194–208.Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. (1992). Intelligence and development: A cognitive theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. Washington, DC: Second Language Testing Inc.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1996). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Corno, L., Cronbach, L. J., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D. F., Mandinach, E. B., Porteus, A. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deary, I. (2000). Looking down on human intelligence: From psychometrics to the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deary, I., Egan, V., Gibson, G., Austin, E., Brand, R., & Kellaghan, T. (1996). Intelligence and the differentiation hypothesis. Intelligence, 23, 105–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graaff, R. (1997). Differential effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–51). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill Van Patten's “Processing instruction: An update.” Language Learning, 52, 805–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–262). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleishman, E. A. & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. L. (1993). “Foreign” language learning disabilities: issues, research, and teaching implications. In Vogel, S. A. & Adelman, P. B. (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 282–317). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2004). Task complexity and L2 oral narrative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Applied Linguistics, University of Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Language-based learning disabilities. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 95–113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. (2000). A theory-based approach to the measurement of foreign language aptitude: The CANAL-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84, 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, I., & Moore, J. (2004). Foreign language students' conversational negotiations in different task environments. Applied Linguistics, 25, 340–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (1989). Implicit and incidental language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partly artificial input. In Dechert, H. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Interlingual processing (pp. 49–73). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. & DeKeyser, R. M. (Eds.). (1997). Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51, 401–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. In Foster-Cohen, S., García-Mayo, M. P. and Cenoz, J. (Eds.), Eurosla yearbook. Vol. 5 (pp. 195–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C., & Lajoie, S. (2003). Reassessing aptitude: Introduction to a special issue on honor of Richard E. Snow. Educational Psychologist, 38, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 217–58). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (2004). Working memory, task switching and executive control in the task span procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 218–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacIntyre, P. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 45–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp. J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G., & Ziedner, M. (2004). Traits, states and a trilogy of mind: An adaptive perspective on intellectual functioning. In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 143–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Niwa, Y. (2000). Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence and aptitude. Unpublished master's dissertation, Department of English, Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan.Google Scholar
Oxford, R. (Ed.). (2003). Special issue: Language learning styles and strategies. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41 (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Vintner, A. (2002). The self-organizing consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 297–388.Google ScholarPubMed
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur language aptitude battery (PLAB). Washington, DC: Second Language Testing Inc.Google Scholar
Rahimpour, M. (1999). Task complexity and variation in interlanguage. In Jungheim, N. O. & Robinson, P. (Eds.), Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the 3rd Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Vol. 2 (pp. 115–34). Tokyo: PacSLRF.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners' analytic abilities in the communicative classroom. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 159–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995a). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995b). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995c). Aptitude, awareness and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 303–58). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996a). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996b). Consciousness, rules and instructed second language acquisition. New York: Lang.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (1996c). Task complexity and second language syllabus design: Data-based studies and speculations. University of Queensland Working Papers in Language and Linguistics (Special issue).Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997a). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997b). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced and rule-search conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1999). Second language classroom research in Japan: Issues, studies, and prospects. In Fujimura, T., Kato, Y., & Smith, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th IUJ conference on second language research (pp. 93–116). Tokyo: International University of Japan.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001c). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes, and learning conditions in SLA. Second Language Research, 17, 368–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2001d). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002a). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002b). Individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory during adult incidental second language learning: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991). In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2002c). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003a). Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–78). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003b). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45–107.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2004). Rules and similarity processes in Artificial Grammar and natural second language learning: What is the “default”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 33–34.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005c). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength and frequency effects in implicit Artificial Grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (in press). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In García-Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ha, M. (1993). Instance theory and second language rule learning under explicit conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 413–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., Ting, S.C-C., & Urwin, J. (1995). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC Journal, 26, 62–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Yamaguchi, Y. (1999). Aptitude, task feedback and generalizability of focus on form: A classroom study. Paper presented at the 12th AILA world congress, Waseda University, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Sasaki, M. (1996). Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence. New York: Lang.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 127–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 1–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language learning (pp. 237–322). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second language acquisition. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavelson, R. J., & Roeser, R. W. (Eds.). (2002). A multidimensional approach to achievement validation: Special Issue. Educational Assessment, 8, 2.Google Scholar
Sick, J., & Irie, K. (2000). The Lunic Language Marathon: A new language aptitude instrument for Japanese foreign language learners. In Cornwell, S. & Robinson, P. (Eds.), Individual differences in foreign language learning: Effects of aptitude, intelligence and motivation (pp. 173–86). Tokyo: Aoyama Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1987). Aptitude complexes. In Snow, R. E. & Farr, M. J. (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction, Vol. 3: Conative and affective process analysis (pp. 11–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1994). Abilities in academic tasks. In Sternberg, R. J. & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 3–37). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, R. E., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1987). Aptitude, learning and instruction. Vol. 3: Conative and affective process analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Snow, R. E., Kyllonen, P. C., & Marshalek, B. (1984). The topography of ability and learning correlations. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 47–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stanovitch, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2002). The theory of successful intelligence and its implications for language aptitude testing. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 13–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.). (1994). Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×