Chapter published in:
Aptitude-Treatment Interaction in Second Language Learning
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser
[Benjamins Current Topics 116] 2021
► pp. 173–201

The value of introspective measures in aptitude-treatment interaction research

A window on individual differences in action

| Sandy Spring Friends School
| University of Tokyo
| Texas Tech University
To explore the value of introspective measures in aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) research, this study analyzed the cognitive profiles and concurrent think-alouds of six university learners of Japanese who were highly successful, moderately successful, or unsuccessful under two computer-mediated feedback conditions in a larger (N = 80) quantitative ATI investigation (Sachs, 2011). That study had made indirect inferences regarding relationships among individual differences (IDs), cognitive processes, and learning on the basis of correlational results. Using Leow’s (2015) depth-of-processing (DoP) framework as a lens, what we found in the qualitative verbalization data highlighted that learners in the same condition with similar strengths in the IDs that are statistically associated with performance at the group level may nonetheless engage in different cognitive processes and achieve different learning outcomes, and vice versa. The findings also pointed toward more complex ID-DoP and ID-ID interactions that future research could explore, such as the possibility that a weakness in memory might limit the benefits of metalinguistic knowledge and analytic processing in a condition where group-level correlations suggest analysis is relevant to success, or that analytic processing might enhance the value of memory in a condition where memory is relevant to success. In our conclusions, we argue for the value of mixed-methods research in this area.
Keywords: individual differences, aptitude-treatment interaction, feedback, cognitive processes, depth of processing, concurrent think-alouds, Japanese, computer-assisted language learning
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Review of literature
    • The value of introspective measures in feedback research
    • The value of introspective measures in ATI research
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Linguistic target
    • Procedure
    • Treatments and tests
  • Concurrent think-alouds
  • Results and discussion
  • Right/Wrong-feedback condition
    • Marvin vs. Henry: Fairly similar on the IDs predicting performance in the Right/Wrong condition, but with different processing and different learning outcomes
    • Nora: Weaknesses in IDs plus shallow processing confirm the overall ATI patterns
  • Diagrams-feedback condition
    • Matt vs. Heath: Fairly similar on the IDs predicting performance in the Diagrams condition, but with different processing and different learning outcomes, possibly related to other IDs
    • Natalie: IDs might interact and limit one another
  • Limitations, conclusions, and future research
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 21 April 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.116.08sac
References
Adrada-Rafael, S.
(2017) Processing the Spanish imperfect subjunctive: Depth of processing under different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 477–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker-Smemoe, W., & Haslam, N.
(2013) The effect of language learning aptitude, strategy use, and learning context on L2 pronunciation learning. Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 435–456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. A.
(2010) Concurrent verbal reports in second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 111–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Kempe, V., & Sionov, A.
(2006) The role of learner and input variables in learning inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 185–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M.
(1959) Modern Language Aptitude Test. Rockville, MD: Second Language Testing.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M.
(1993) The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2012) Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62(S2), 189–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Della Sala, S., Gray, C., Baddeley, A., & Wilson, L.
(1997) The Visual Patterns Test: A test of short-term visual recall. Suffolk: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
Dennett, D.
(2003) Who’s on first? Heterophenomenology explained. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 1–12.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A.
(2012) How to carry out case-study research. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language research: A practical guide (pp. 95–116). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R.
(2005) Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J.
(2012) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y.
(2019) Language aptitude profiles and the effectiveness of implicit and explicit corrective feedback. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 438–451). New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H-C., Moreno, N., & Leow, R. P.
(2016) Awareness, type of medium, and L2 development: Revisiting Hsieh (2008). In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 131–150). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hwu, F., & Sun, S.
(2012) The aptitude-treatment interaction effects on the learning of grammar rules. System, 40, 505–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A.
(2014) The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P.
(2015) Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, S.
(2013) The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J.
(2002) Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y. Y., & Wong, P. C. M.
(2011) Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 461–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rassaei, E.
(2013) Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development. System, 41(2), 472–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P.
(2014) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63, 595–626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(1997) Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P.
(2004) Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R. R.
(2011) Individual differences and the effectiveness of visual feedback on reflexive binding in L2 Japanese (Open-access doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University. Retrieved from https://​pqdtopen​.proquest​.com​/pubnum​/3450858​.html
Sachs, R., & Nakatsukasa, K.
(2019) Aptitude-treatment interactions in depth of processing: Individual differences and prior linguistics coursework predict learners’ approaches to computer-mediated language learning activities. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 422–437). New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y.
(2007a) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007b) 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: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
(2002) Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R.
(2008) Meaning in the second language. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Ruiz, S., Vega, J. L. M., & Rebuschat, P.
(2016) Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 293–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M.
(1995) Acquisition of the Japanese reflexive zibun and movement of anaphors in Logical Form. Second Language Research, 11(3), 206–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, L., Bruhn-Garavito, J., Kawasaki, T., Pater, J., & Prévost, P.
(1997) The researcher gave the subject a test about himself: Problems of ambiguity and preference in the investigation of reflexive binding. Language Learning, 47(1), 145–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G.
(2016) The roles of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 147–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar