Cognitive Aptitudes for Implicit and Explicit

Learning

Gisela Granena

Universitat Oberta Catalunya

Yucel Yilmaz

Indiana University

1

Conceptualizing language aptitude: Past and Present

Applying aptitude to explain variation in: Ultimate attainment (i.e., ceiling)

Outcomes under different instructional interventions (i.e., rate)

Future research and applications

2

How do individuals differ in learning languages?

Affective (e.g., motivation, personality)

Experiential (e.g., language experience)

Biological (e.g., age)

Cognitive (e.g., language aptitude)

3

“Special talent” for language; “language flair”; “knack” for languages

No unitary construct of aptitude: Not one indivisible ‘thing’ but many ‘things’ (componential)

We should speak of cognitive aptitudeS for language learning: Cognitive and perceptual abilities that predispose individuals to learn well or rapidly

4

J. B. Carroll as the dominating figure (50’s and 60’s)

Carroll’s assumptions about aptitude: Componential

Independent of intelligence True for some aptitudes (Woltz, 1990, 1999)

Not true for other aptitudes

Intelligence Working Memory (Engle et al., 1999; Kyllonen, 1996; Kyllonen & Christal, 1990)

Intelligence LLAMA tests B, E, F (Granena, 2012)

Innate and stable Some aptitudes are trainable (Jaeggi et al., 2010, 2011) or impacted by

experience (Papagno & Vallar, 1995; Grigorenko et al., 2000)

5

Carroll’s model and the MLAT (Carroll & Sapon, 1959) ◦ Phonetic Coding: Ability to form associations between

sounds-symbols = Auditory ability

◦ Rote Learning: Conscious storage of information in LTM by repetition = Memory ability

◦ Grammatical Sensitivity: Ability to

recognize grammatical functions

◦ Inductive Learning: Ability to infer

(notice and identify) patterns or rules

6

= Language

analytic ability (Skehan, 1989)

• Weighted in favor of explicit cognitive processes

Conscious reflection on language forms, time to think and analyze, and memorize Designed to predict rate under intensive conditions

(audiolingualism)

• Advances in understanding how languages are learned and in teaching methodology (Long & Doughty, 2009) Study of language as object vs. experiential approaches

• Advances in the understanding of human memory systems (e.g., Baddeley & Hitch’s WM model in 1974)

7

• New aptitude constructs

Implicit learning and memory processes as abilities (Woltz, 2003) (e.g., primability, SRT anticipations)

Learning “in the absence of

1) conscious intention to learn

2) conscious awareness of the fact that we are learning

3) conscious attribution of any noticed change to the effects of learning” (Jiménez, 2002: 62)

Meaningful individual differences do exist (Kaufman et al., 2010; Reber & Allen, 2000) vs. Reber (1989)

Carroll and Maxwell’s (1979) “budding but fitful and hesitant courtship between psychometrics and experimental cognitive psychology” (p. 604)

8

• Doughty et al.’s (2010) Hi-LAB (High Level Language Aptitude Battery) Active Memory and Processing (WM, STM, Task Switching,

Processing Speed)

Foreign Sounds (Learning/Distinguishing foreign sounds)

Implicit Learning (Priming, SRT Anticipations)

Explicit Learning (Explicit Induction, Rote Memory)

9

• Granena (2012; 2013a) Explicit Language Aptitude: Relevant for explicit language

learning and processing (intentionally) through reasoning and deliberate hypothesis testing LLAMA B, E and F in the LLAMA aptitude test

GAMA (intelligence)

Implicit Language Aptitude: Relevant to acquire patterns in input without awareness of the rules (implicit induction) LLAMA D

Probabilistic Serial Reaction Time Task

10

Include study time (offline measures) Involve working out relations (problem-solving)

Allow strategy use

No study phase

Involve online processing Minimal demands on executive functions

• GAMA (explicit aptitude): Matching, Analogies, Sequences, Construction

11

• Probabilistic SRT Task (implicit aptitude)

12

______

______

______

______ * * * *

Learning success ◦ Speed of language acquisition (rate)

◦ Variation in ultimate attainment (ceiling)

The nature of the learning process ◦ In different learner populations (e.g., child vs. adult learners;

DeKeyser, 2000)

◦ Under different instructed conditions (e.g., Feedback types, task

conditions, types of instruction): ATI research (Erlam, 2005; Sheen, 2007)

Example: Language analytical ability will play a role in a teaching method that makes learners figure out rules by themselves

13

14

Cognitive aptitudes and ultimate

attainment in informal contexts

Explicit Aptitudes

Granena (2012)

Implicit Aptitudes

Granena (2012)

Cognitive aptitudes and rate in formal

contexts

Explicit Aptitudes

Yilmaz & Granena (submitted)

Implicit Aptitudes

?

Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam (2008), DeKeyser (2000), DeKeyser et al. (2010) Aptitude measures were weighted heavily in favor of

explicit cognitive processes (i.e., language analysis)

L2 attainment measures allowed time to reflect on language correctness (untimed GJTs)

15

Some positive association between the two sets of scores is to be expected because they are tapping into the same metalinguistic abilities (Long 2007:73)

Evidence from aptitude and L2 measures that are less similar would be more robust!!

Chinese L1-Spanish L2 learners in a naturalistic learning context (long-term residents in Spain) 50 child L2 learners (AOs 3-6)

50 adult L2 learners (AOs > 16)

20 NS controls

Explicit language aptitude (LLAMA B, E, F, and intelligence) and implicit language aptitude (LLAMA D and SRT task)

Agreement structures and non-agreement structures

L2 measures requiring more or less automatic use of language knowledge

16

Results for both early and late learners, not NSs

17

+ controlled + automatic

Metalinguistic Knowledge

Test

Untimed GJTs Timed GJTs Word

Monitoring Task

Explicit Language Aptitude Implicit Language Aptitude

(agreement structures)

Summary Differences in cognitive aptitudes explain variation in

ultimate attainment in both early and late learners

However, the effects of aptitude differ depending on: 1) Type of L2 measure

Explicit aptitude: L2 measures that focus on language correctness + controlled use of knowledge (also in Granena, 2013b)

Implicit aptitude: Meaning-based measures + automatic use of knowledge

2) Target structure (salient vs. non-salient)

No relationship in NSs (typically at ceiling or highly homogenous)

18

Differences in cognitive aptitudes may moderate the effectiveness of different types of instruction

ATI research ◦ Types

A. Intentionally matching learners to treatment condition (aptitude is measured prior to the experiment)

1. Collect aptitude data on participants

2. Identify aptitude subgroups (e.g., analytic vs. memory)

3. Randomly assign from each subgroup into treatment groups

4. Assess effectiveness of treatments

B. Including aptitude as a moderator variable (aptitude is measured at the time of the experiment) (e.g., Erlam, 2005; Sheen, 2007)

19

Pretest/Posttest/Delayed Posttest design (N = 80) Explicit language aptitude (LLAMA subtests B/E/F) Different feedback groups that were comparable in

aptitude: 1) Explicit Feedback (n =16): Direct correction

2) Implicit Feedback (n = 16): Recasts

3) Mixed Feedback (n = 16): Explicit feedback in first two obligatory contexts and implicit feedback in the rest

4) Reduced Explicit Feedback (n = 16): Explicit feedback in first two obligatory contexts

5) No Feedback (n = 16)

Oral production as outcome measure Use of the indefinite article by Turkish EFL learners

20

Results

In terms of the effectiveness of feedback… In the immediate posttest All the feedback groups > No Feedback group

Explicit and Mixed > Implicit and Reduced Explicit

Explicit = Mixed

Implicit = Reduced Explicit

In the delayed posttest (2 months) All the feedback groups > No Feedback group

No differences among feedback groups

21

Results

In terms of the effects of explicit language aptitude… The impact of aptitude on learning outcomes

depended on feedback group (significant interaction)

Aptitude explained 43% of the variance in immediate posttest scores in the Explicit Feedback group (r = .66*) (and between 0% and 8% in the other groups)

No significant relationship between aptitude and delayed posttest scores

22

23

Conclusions Certain types of instruction do match L2 learners’ cognitive

abilities better

Explicit feedback seems to require a mental process that is facilitated/hampered by the value of aptitude for explicit learning It may have put pressure on the learners to focus attention on

language structure, search for rules and formulate/test hypotheses

24

Pedagogical implications Vatz, Tare, Jackson, & Doughty (To appear)

An instructional treatment may level the playing field and yield superior results regardless of aptitude

Aptitude may play a role within a treatment, but this treatment may be still as good, or better, than other options, even for the lower-aptitude learners

Two treatments may be equally effective but aptitude plays a role only in one of them Favor the type of instruction that produces similar outcomes without

benefitting subgroups (unless students can be matched to instruction)

Explicit Feedback = Mixed Feedback

[+ aptitude] [- aptitude]

25

What are aptitude profiles? ◦ IDs are not simply continuous but “learner types”

(patterns of aptitude) can be identified (Skehan, 1986; 1989;

1991; Pimsleur et al., 1966)

Analytically vs. memory-oriented learners (Skehan, 1986)

◦ Aptitude components are relatively independent

◦ We can apply this idea to explicit and implicit aptitude, since they are not correlated (Granena, 2012):

High Explicit, Low Implicit

Low Explicit, High Implicit

High Explicit, High Implicit

26

Research design: A proposal (Yilmaz & Granena, In preparation)

◦ ILA (Implicit Language Aptitude)

◦ ELA (Explicit Language Aptitude)

27

High ELA – Low ILA

✗

Explicit Feedback

(Gender)

Recasts

(Number)

Low ELA – High ILA

✗

Explicit Feedback

(Gender)

Recasts

(Number)

High ELA – High ILA

Explicit Feedback

(Gender)

Recasts

(Number)

Other instructional interventions (triangulation) ◦ Methods of instruction –e.g., rule explanation vs. input flood

◦ Task design features –e.g., high vs. low cognitive demands of tasks

The role of aptitude in NSs (children and adults)

Aptitudes x target structures

Online learning and technology to investigate aptitude profiles

28

National Science Foundation (NSF) ◦ Dissertation Award # 1124126

Age Differences and Cognitive Aptitudes in Ultimate Second Language Attainment

Language Learning Dissertation Grant

29

Carroll, J. B., & Maxwell, S. E. (1979). Individual differences in cognitive abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 603–640.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.

Granena, G. (2012). Age differences and cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning in ultimate L2 attainment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Jiménez, L. (2002). Attention in probabilistic sequence learning. In Jiménez, L. (ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 43–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jimenez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340.

Skehan, P. (1989). The relationship between native and foreign language learning ability: Educational and linguistic factors. In H. Dechert (Ed.), Current trends in European second language acquisition research (pp. 83–106). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–93). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. J. (in press). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (Submitted). The Role of Explicit Language Aptitude on The Relative Effects of Explicit, Implicit and Mixed Feedback.

30

THANK YOU!!

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS?

31

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (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., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test: Form A. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Carroll, J. B., & Maxwell, S. E. (1979). Individual differences in cognitive abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 603–640.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.

DeKeyser, R. M., Alfi-Shabtay, I., & Ravid, D. (2010). Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age-effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 413–438.

Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 128, 309–331.

Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147-171.

Granena, G. (2012). Age differences and cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning in ultimate L2 attainment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

32

Granena, G. (2013b). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Grigorenko, E., Sternberg, R., & Ehrman, M. (2000). A Theory-Based Approach to the Measurement of Foreign Language Learning Ability. The CANAL-F Theory and Test. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 390–405.

Jaeggi S. M., Studer-Luethi B., Buschkuehl M., Su Y.-F., Jonides J., Perrig W. J. (2010). The relationship between n-back performance and matrix reasoning – implications for training and transfer. Intelligence 38, 625–635

Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Shah, P. (2011). Short- and long-term benefits of cognitive training. PNAS, 108(25), 10081-10086.

Jiménez, L. (2002). Attention in probabilistic sequence learning. In Jiménez, L. (ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 43–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jimenez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340.

Kyllonen, P. C. (1996). Is working memory capacity Spearman’s g? In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement (pp. 49–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389–433.

33

Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Long, M. H., & Doughty, C.J. (2009). Handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Papagno, C. and Vallar, G. (1995). Short-term memory and vocabulary learning in polyglots. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 98-107.

Pimsleur, P., Sundland, D. M., & McIntyre, R. D. (1966). Underachievement in foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Modern Language Association.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). New York: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (1986). Cluster analysis and the identification of learner types. In V. Cook (Ed.), Experimental approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 81-94). Oxford: Pergamon.

Skehan, P. (1989). The relationship between native and foreign language learning ability: Educational and linguistic factors. In H. Dechert (Ed.), Current trends in European second language acquisition research (pp. 83–106). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298.

Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–93). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381-395). New York: Routledge.

34

Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219–235.

Reber, A. S., & Allen, R. (2000). Individual differences in implicit learning: Implications for the evolution of consciousness. In R. G. Kunzendorf & B. Wallace (Eds.), Individual differences in conscious experience (pp. 227–247). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. J. (in press). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Woltz, D. J. (1990). Repetition of semantic comparisons: Temporary and persistent priming effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 392–403.

Woltz, D. J. (1999). Individual differences in priming: The roles of implicit facilitation from prior processing. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen,& R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 135–156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Woltz, D. J. (2003). Implicit cognitive processes as aptitudes for learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 95–104.

Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (Submitted). The Role of Explicit Language Aptitude on The Relative Effects of Explicit, Implicit and Mixed Feedback.

35