Carol A. Chapelle - The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

In fact, many situations in which the L2 can be learned (like parties, the workplace, watching subtitled movies) require the abilities for incidental learning. One could argue that for advanced L2 learning, the ability to learn incidentally is particularly important. Some adults are good at learning the L2 incidentally, while others need more help in such situations. But the MLAT doesn't measure ability for incidental learning. It measures only abilities for explicit, intentional learning. Robinson (1997, 2005a) showed that the paired associates, and words in sentences subtests of MLAT, do not predict incidental L2 learning, though they do predict explicit instructed L2 learning, and correlate significantly and positively with measures of verbal intelligence. To this extent, measures of aptitude such as MLAT are situationally insensitive, predicting learning under explicit, but not incidental processing conditions.

Clearly, since the 1950s and 1960s when aptitude batteries such as the MLAT were first researched, piloted, and then published there has been a great deal of SLA research (see Ellis, 2008). These early aptitude batteries were developed without the benefit of findings from this research. Similarly, important psychological constructs and phenomena such as priming (Kinoshita & Lupker, 2003), task switching (Monsell, 2003), implicit, episodic, and working memory (Baddeley, 2015), were simply not conceived of, theorized and researched, at that time.

There is therefore a clear need to update our current theories, and measures, of aptitude, accommodating, where necessary, these recent findings from SLA and cognitive psychology research. Skehan (2016) has proposed such an updated theory of aptitude, proposing that processing and storing input in memory; noticing and subsequent pattern identification; and complexifying and restructuring of language knowledge, are different stages that correspond to different abilities and aptitudes for successful L2 learning and performance. Robinson (2007, 2012) has proposed a theory of aptitude describing how different clusters of cognitive abilities are related to learning from explicit instruction; incidental learning from written input, and from oral input; and from corrective recasting of output. For example, individual differences between learners in the extent to which prior exposure to a word or form “primes” and so speeds their subsequent recognition of it is proposed to be related to their success in incidental learning from speech or text. Alternatively, the ability to “switch” attention between the communicative content of speech, and a form made salient by recasting or input enhancement is proposed to be related to individual differences in task‐switching abilities—those with better task‐switching abilities being better able to process and learn the recast or enhanced form. In line with these proposals, a recently developed aptitude test battery, Hi‐LAB (Linck et al., 2013) incorporates measures of priming and task‐switching abilities with a view to identifying cognitive aptitudes for implicit, as well as explicit language learning. Researching the issues raised by these more recent theories of aptitude is to be encouraged for the light this can cast on explanations of SLA phenomena, as well as for its potential relevance to pedagogy, and the issue of matching learner aptitudes to optimal conditions of instructional exposure.

SEE ALSO:Attention, Noticing, and Awareness in Second Language Acquisition; Explicit Knowledge and Grammar Explanation in Second Language Instruction; Instructed Second Language Acquisition

1 Baddeley, A. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17–29). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

2 Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education (pp. 87–136). New York, NY: John Wiley.

3 Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation/HBJ.

4 Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

5 Granena, G., & Long, M. (Eds.). (2013). Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

6 Kinoshita, S., & Lupker, S. (Eds.). (2003). Masked priming: The state of the art. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

7 Linck, J., Hughes, M., Campbell, S., Silbert, N., Tare, M., Jackson, S., … & Doughty, C. (2013). Hi‐LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high‐level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–66.

8 Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–40.

9 Petersen, C., & Al‐Haik, A. (1976). The development of the Defense Language Aptitude Battery. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36(2), 369–80.

10 Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB). New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.

11 Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.

12 Robinson, P. (2005a). Cognitive abilities, chunk‐strength and frequency effects in artificial grammar and incidental second language learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld and Hernstadt (1991), and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance to SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–68.

13 Robinson, P. (2005b). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45–73.

14 Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning (pp. 256–86). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

15 Robinson, P. (2012). Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes, and aptitude test development. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 57–76). New York, NY: Springer.

16 Roehr, K. (2018). Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.

17 Saffran, J., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. (1996). Statistical learning by 8‐month‐old infants. Science, 274, 1926–8.

18 Skehan, P. (2016). Foreign language aptitude, acquisitional sequences, and psycholinguistic processes. In G. Granena, D. Jackson, & Y. Yilmaz (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17–40). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

1 Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor‐analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

2 Corno, L., Cronbach, L., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D., Mandinach, E., Portues, A., & Talbert, J. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

3 Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

MARGO GOTTLIEB AND ANNE KATZ

The role of assessment in the classroom occupies an increasingly visible and valued place in the education literature as teachers, researchers, and test specialists examine how assessment can be woven into instruction to support language development (Davison & Leung, 2009). In this entry, classroom assessment is distinguished from traditional tests and measurement to encompass a broad conceptualization of what teachers and students do on an ongoing basis to gather, analyze, and share information to improve teaching and learning. It acknowledges that the field of language assessment is moving from a technical or cognitive‐based activity for generating scores to a socially embedded process (Bachman & Damböck, 2017).