Cover not available
Part of
Cognitive Individual Differences in Second Language Processing and Acquisition
Edited by Gisela Granena, Daniel O. Jackson and Yucel Yilmaz
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 3] 2016
► pp. 327–349

The role of explicit language aptitude in implicit, explicit, and mixed feedback conditions

| Indiana University
| Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
| Indiana University
This study examined whether there is any relationship between second language (L2) learning outcomes under different negative feedback conditions and cognitive abilities for language learning that involve explicit cognitive processes (i.e. explicit language aptitude). The study followed a pretest, immediate posttest, delayed posttest design, and used a set of controlled oral production tests as outcome measures. Between the pretest and the immediate posttest, 80 L2 learners of English carried out three oral production tasks, in which their errors on the indefinite article were treated according to the group they had been assigned to (i.e. explicit, implicit, mixed, reduced explicit or no-feedback). Three subtests from the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test battery (Meara 2005) were used to test the learners’ explicit language aptitude. Results showed that only on the immediate posttest and only under the explicit feedback condition was explicit language aptitude predictive of L2 performance.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relative effectiveness of feedback types
  • 3.Explicit language aptitude (ELA)
  • 4.Present study
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Target structure
    • .3Treatment tasks
      • 5.3.1Story retelling
      • 5.3.2Spot the difference
      • 5.3.3Guided oral production
    • 5.4Pretest/posttest/delayed posttest
      • 5.4.1Story retelling
      • 5.4.2Spot the difference
      • 5.4.3Guided oral production
    • 5.5Explicit language aptitude tests
    • 5.6Treatment groups
      • 5.6.1Explicit
      • 5.6.2Implicit
      • 5.6.3Mixed
      • 5.6.4Reduced explicit
      • 5.6.5No feedback
    • 5.7Procedure
    • 5.8Scoring
  • 6.Results
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.3.15yil
References (55)
References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern language aptitude test: Form A. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caspi, O., & Bell, I. R. (2004). One size does not fit all: Aptitude x treatment interaction (ATI) as a conceptual framework for complementary and alternative medicine outcome research. Part 1--what is ATI research? Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (New York, NY), 10, 580–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., Campbell, S., Mislevy, M., Bunting, M., Bowles, A., & Koeth, J. (2010). Predicting near-native ability: The factor structure and reliability of Hi-LAB. In M. Prior, Y. Watanabe, & S. Lee (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 10–31). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2009). Articles in Turkish/English interlanguage revisited: Implications of vowel harmony. In M. Garcia Mayo & R. Hawkins (Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications (pp. 201–232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2012). Age differences and cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning in ultimate L2 attainment. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
(2013). 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 (pp. 105–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, D., & Gleason, J. I. (2002). Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English: An analysis of four nongeneric uses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361–377). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google 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 P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Master, P. (2002). Information structure and English article pedagogy. System, 30, 331–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLeod, D.B. (1978). [Review of the book Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 390–395. Retrieved from JSTOR Web site: <[URL]>
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests. Swansea, UK: Lognostics.Google Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1983). Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 159–180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition. A series of empirical studies (pp. 212–228). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In Hulstijn, J. H., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Consciousness and second language learning: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues in language learning and teaching. Thematic issue of AILA Review,, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
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, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (Vol. 2, pp. 69–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2011). Subcomponents of second-language aptitude and second-language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 253–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 144–171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. J. (2013). 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 (pp. 271–290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 6, 1134–1169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 147–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 293–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zhang, Wei & Yi Liao
2023. The role of auditory processing in L2 vowel learning: evidence from recasts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
Bokander, Lars & Emanuel Bylund
2020. Probing the Internal Validity of the LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests. Language Learning 70:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.