Cover not available
Part of
Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching
Edited by Shaofeng Li
[Task-Based Language Teaching 16] 2024
► pp. 140–160

Chapter 5
Written languaging, language aptitude, and L2 learning through dictogloss tasks

 | 1Josai University
 | 2University College London
Languaging, learners’ reflections/comments on language use, has been shown to facilitate second language (L2) learning, presumably because it creates opportunities for noticing L2 constructions. If so, it would appear that the extent to which learners can make use of these opportunities might be influenced by their aptitude, as those with greater aptitude may be more prone to learning through noticing. Little research, however, has been conducted to explore this possibility. This study investigated whether learners with varying degrees of language analytic ability differentially benefit from engaging in written languaging when it is integrated into task-based work. The study employed a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design, with 64 participants assigned to two groups. As part of dictogloss tasks, one group engaged in written languaging when comparing their reconstructed text with the original. The other group received the same treatment but did not have the opportunity to carry out written languaging during the dictogloss procedure. We measured language analytic ability with Part 4 of the MLAT, Part 2 of the LABJ, and the LLAMA_F test. A grammar production test and a grammar recognition test were included to assess development in the knowledge of the target construction, the if-clause of the present counterfactual conditional. Spearman correlations revealed that language analytic ability had stronger relationship to participants’ learning when they did not engage in written languaging than when they did during the dictogloss task. We interpreted this finding as suggesting that written languaging can help mitigate the influence of language analytic ability on L2 learning.
Keywords: languaging, aptitude, writing, explicit knowledge, dictogloss tasks
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Languaging
    • Aptitude-treatment interaction
    • The present study
  • Method
    • Design
    • Participants
    • Linguistic target
    • Assessment tasks and scoring
    • Aptitude measures
    • Treatment task and procedure
    • Data collection procedures
    • Statistical analyses
  • Results
    • Preliminary analyses
      • Pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest results
      • Results for aptitude tests
    • Relationships between aptitude tests and posttest /delayed posttest scores
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 6 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.16.05ish
References (49)
References
Bygate, M. (2018). Language learning through task repetition. John Benjamins. 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). Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D.[URL][URL] (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [URL]Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. -H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477. [URL]Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1967). How can instruction be adapted to individual differences? In R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 23–39). Merrill Books.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62(S2), 189–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DiCamilla, F. J., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). The linguistic analysis of private writing. Language Sciences, 16(3–4), 347–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei. Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). Aptitude-treatment interaction in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Studies in English Education, 4(2), 803–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, M. (2018). Written languaging, learners’ proficiency levels and L2 grammar learning. System, 74, 50–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, M., & Suzuki, W. (2016). The effect of written languaging on learning the hypothetical conditional in English. System, 58, 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, M., & Révész, A. (2020). L2 Learning and the frequency and quality of written languaging. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 220–240). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing in second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, D. N. (2018). The best of both worlds: Combining cognitive linguistics and pedagogic tasks to teach English conditionals. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 668–693. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (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(3), 634–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Six decades of language aptitude research: A comprehensive and critical review. In Z. Wen, P. Skehan, A. Biedron, S. Li, & R. Sparks (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research, and practice. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(3), 693–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Google Scholar.
Ottó, I. (2002). Magyar Egységes Nyelvérzékmérő-Teszt [Hungarian language aptitude test]. Kaposvár: Mottó-Logic Bt.Google Scholar
Pimsleur, P. (1966). The Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovic.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64(3), 615–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp. 113–133). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, M. (1996). Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence: Quantitative and qualitative analyses. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). [URL] System, 49, 110–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanations. In N. Garnott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 31–58). Cambridge University Press. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–94). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Language aptitude. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110–1133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concepts in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 5–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987) Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, A. S. Carton & N. Minick (Eds.), The collected works of L. S Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 37–285). Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2008). The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 10–25). University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
(2012). The role(s) of writing and writing instruction in L2 development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yalçın, Ş., & Spada, N. (2016). Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty: An EFL classroom-based study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

An, Hyejin & Shaofeng Li
2024. Anxiety in task-based language teaching. In Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching [Task-Based Language Teaching, 16], ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo
Ellis, Rod
2024. Conclusion. In Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching [Task-Based Language Teaching, 16], ► pp. 346 ff. DOI logo
Li, Shaofeng
2024. Individual differences and task-based language teaching. In Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching [Task-Based Language Teaching, 16], ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
Skehan, Peter
2024. Foreword. In Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching [Task-Based Language Teaching, 16], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Willis, Jane
2024. Practitioners’ perspectives. In Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching [Task-Based Language Teaching, 16], ► pp. 288 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 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.