Aptitude Complex/Ability Differentiation Framework References

 

'Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes and aptitude test development'. (2012). In Miroslaw Pawlak (Ed.), New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Second Language Learning and Teaching, (Chapter 5, pp.57-76). Oxford: Springer.

'Introduction to the encyclopedia'. (2013). In Peter Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition. New York/London: Routledge.

'Task-based learning: Cognitive underpinnings'. (2013) (with Roger Gilabert). In Carol Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. (pp.5532-5537). Oxford: Blackwell.

'Aptitude and second language acquisition'. (2013). In Carol Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. (pp.129-133). Oxford: Blackwell.

Tasks, Abilities and Aptitudes: An Interactionist Perspective on L2 Research and Pedagogy . (to appear). New York/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

'Abilities to learn—Cognitive abilities'. (2012). In Norbert Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp.17-20). Oxford: Springer.

'Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes and the development of second language learning aptitude tests'. (2009). In Miroslaw Pawlak (Ed.), New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Second Language Learning aand Teaching, (Chapter 4, pp., 89-109). Poznan: Adam Mickievicz University Press.

'Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice’. (2007). Robert DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in Second Language Learning: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. (Chapter 10, pp. 256-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.

'Aptitude and second language acquisition.' (2005). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25: 46-73. Cambridge University Press.


'Aptitude complexes, acquisition processes and instructed language learning contexts: Why existing aptitude tests need revising'. (2005). In H. Shinbo (Ed.), Psycholinguistics and SLA: Proceedings of the 2005 Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) Annual Summer Seminar. (Chapter 4, pp. 31-45). Tokyo: JACET Publishing.

'Cognitive prerequisites for incidental second language learning.' (2004). In Donald L. Smith, Shuichi Nobe, Peter Robinson, Gregory J. Strong, Minako Tani, & Hiroshi Yoshiba , Language and Comprehension: Perspectives from Linguistics and Language Education, (Chapter 7, pp. 141-186). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishing.

'Multiple aptitudes for instructed second language acquisition.' (2003). Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 3, (3): 375-410. Seoul National University.


‘Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy’. (2002). In Peter Robinson (Ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. (Chapter 6, pp. 113-133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

‘Introduction: Researching individual differences and instructed learning’ (2002). In Peter Robinson (Ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. (Chapter 1, pp. 1-10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. (2002). (Edited collection). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

‘Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition’ (2001) Second Language Research, 17, (4); 368-392. Special Issue on Explanations and Scientific Method in Second Language Research, Festschrift for Paul Van Buren, Edited by Larry Selinker and Usha Lakshmanan.

Individual Differences in Foreign Language Learning: Effects of Aptitude, Intelligence and Motivation. (2000). (Edited collection, with Steve Cornwell). Tokyo: Aoyama Gakuin University.

'Focus on form: Theory, research and practice'. (with Michael H. Long) (1998). In Catherine Doughty & Jessica Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (Chapter 2, pp.15-41).New York: Cambridge University Press.
‘There are two closely related hypotheses that define Robinson’s basic framework, and he attempts to show how, taken together, they make predictions about how to optimally match learners to instructional options (for expanded discussions of the framework see Robinson 2001c, 2002a)

        The Aptitude Complex Hypothesis. The first Aptitude Complex Hypothesis (based on proposals by Snow, 1987, 1994) claims that certain sets or combinations of cognitive abilities are drawn in learning under one condition of instructional L2 exposure, versus another. Figure 5 operationalizes instructional options in terms of techniques for intervening during classroom activity to focus on form, either by recasting, providing orally or typographically salient input floods to enhance forms and so facilitate incidental learning, or via rule explanation, as it may occur during Input Processing instruction. The details of how aptitude complexes can be matched to these instructional options are motivated in part by findings from the laboratory and focus on form research reviewed above, as the following discussion illustrates.
        Figure 5 describes four aptitude complexes, each made up of different combinations of ability factors. Aptitude complex 1, for learning from recasting, is made up of the abilities for noticing the gap (NTG) between the recast and the learner’s prior utterance (see Schmidt & Frota, 1986), as well as memory for contingent speech (MCS). These two abilities are argued to be important to holding the interlocutors recast in memory, while comparing it to the learners prior utterance, and also noticing critical formal differences between the two. These second order ability (NTG and MCS) factors contributing to this L2 aptitude complex are themselves combinations of domain neutral primary abilities such as perceptual speed and pattern recognition (in the case of noticing the gap) and phonological working memory capacity and speed (in the case of memory for contingent speech). This model, then is hierarchical in its organization of the structure of abilities, in the tradition of Cattell (1976) and Carroll (1993), while also capturing the insight of Snow (1994), that specific combinations of abilities (aptitude complexes) may be related to specific options in L2 instructional exposure.
        Figure 5 also relates primary abilities hypothesized, for example, to underlie the second order ability to notice the gap (NTG), to specific tests of these primary abilities. In the case of perceptual or basic processing speed a test of inspection time, as described in Anderson’s (1992) work is proposed, while in the case of pattern recognition, the sound symbol correspondence — or phonetic sensitivity — subtest of Sasaki’s LABJ aptitude battery is proposed. Evidence for the strong relationship between performance on the LABJ sound symbol test of phonetic sensitivity and learning from recasts was discussed earlier (i.e., findings of Robinson & Yamaguchi, 1999, described in Table 4). In the case of memory for contingent speech, the listening span test of working memory used by Mackey et al. (2002) is proposed as a suitable test of phonological working memory capacity — one of the contributory primary abilities. As also described above, this measure has also been shown to positively predict the ability to notice and learn from recasts during L2 interaction by Mackey et al. (2002).
        The second aptitude complex in Figure 5, for incidental learning from oral input containing a flood of particular forms, is made up of the ability factor memory for contingent speech (MCS) described above, and also deep semantic processing (DSP). This second DSP factor contributes the ability to process the semantic content of input containing the flooded item(s) deeply — and may be measured by tests of the primary ability to infer word meaning (as was used in DeGraaff’s 1997 study, described above) or to construct analogical representations of meaning, and so establish greater semantic coherence between aspects of the input (see e.g., discussion by Sternberg, 1985 of analogical reasoning, and tests of these). The third aptitude complex, for incidental learning from floods provided in written input differs only in that memory for contingent text (MCT), rather than speech, combines with DSP to contribute to this complex of abilities for learning. Finally, Figure 5 illustrates a fourth aptitude complex — aptitude for learning from a brief rule explanation, supplemented by examples written on a classroom board, and then applying the rule (while remembering and rehearsing it) in subsequent comprehension (as in input processing instruction) or production activities. This aptitude complex is made up of the secondary abilities memory for contingent text, as well as metalinguistic rule rehearsal (MRR). This last MRR ability factor is proposed to be measured well by two existing subtests of aptitude: the MLAT words in sentences/grammatical sensitivity and paired associates/rote memory subtests, and Table 3, reporting findings for strong significant positive correlations of rule instructed learning with performance on these subtests in Robinson 1997a, supports this claim. The findings for low, nonsignificant correlations of performance on these subtests and incidental learning in Table 3 also supports the separation of this MRR ability from aptitude complexes 2 and 3 for incidental learning shown in Figure 5.

        The Ability Differentiation Hypothesis. The second part of this framework, the Ability Differentiation Hypothesis is based on findings described by Deary, Egan, Gibson, Austin, Brand and Kellaghan (1996) as well as work on language-based learning abilities and disabilities by, amongst others, Ganschow and Sparks (1993) and Grigorenko (2002). Work on language-based learning disabilities and developmental dyslexia (see the review in Grigorenko, 2002) has shown that some learners have extensive L1-based impairment to, for example, phonological working memory capacity, or specific difficulties in mastering morphosyntactic paradigms in their native language, and Ganschow and Sparks (1993) further argue that such L1-based disabilities underlie poor aptitude for L2 learning. Deary et al. (1996) have also shown, in the field of general intelligence research, that when comparing adults and children, or high IQ with low IQ groups, performance on the subtests of traditional measures of intelligence (such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) is more differentiated (i.e., there are multiple abilities, and a weaker general factor or ‘g’) for adults and high IQ groups than their child, and lower IQ counterparts. These findings suggest, then, that patterns of strengths in abilities contributing to aptitude complexes in Figure 5 may also be very differentiated for some L2 learners, such that the noticing the gap ability is high, while the memory for contingent speech ability is low. This possibility is captured in the top right HL quadrant in aptitude complex 1 in Figure 5. Alternatively, strengths in both NTG and MCS may be high (HH), meaning recasting is a particularly suitable option for focussing on form for these learners; or strengths in both of these factors may be much lower (LL), suggesting that either alternative focus on form techniques are more suitable, or that some remediative training in developing the abilities in question may be (if possible) a necessary option.
        In summary, the Ability Differentiation Hypothesis therefore claims that some L2 learners may have more clearly differentiated abilities — and so strengths in corresponding aptitude complexes — than others, and further that it is particularly important to match these learners to instructional conditions which favor their strengths in aptitude complexes, in contrast to other learners who may have less differentiated abilities, and equivalent strengths and aptitudes for learning under a variety of conditions of exposure.’
(from Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice’. (2007). In Robert DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in Second Language Learning: Perspectives from Linguistics and Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.