It's sometimes said that the two key factors for language learning success are motivation and aptitude. As Li (2015) puts it: "Language aptitude has been found to be one of the most important individual difference variables in second language acquisition."
Any language teacher will tell you that aptitude varies enormously in classrooms (as does motivation!). Indeed, the huge variation is no doubt the main reason why the GCSE exam comes in two tiers - Higher and Foundation. It's hard to design an exam which caters for all degrees of aptitude and resulting attainment. Although many are reluctant to use the terms 'high-ability' or 'low ability' (for fear of labelling students, limiting aspirations or simply in the belief that ability is not fixed), there is a long tradition of research in the field of second language acquisition, which shows that aptitude varies and is probably a fairly fixed trait.
The most famous names in this field would be John Carroll and Stanley Sapon who devised a Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) (1959). According to Rivers (1981), which I am freely quoting from below, Carroll and Sapon considered that the key factors in aptitude are:
- phonetic coding (the ability to 'code' auditory phonetic material so it can be recognised, identified and remembered over time - longer than a few seconds)
- ability to handle grammar (being sensitive to the function of words in a variety of contexts)
- rote memorisation ability
- ability to infer linguistic forms, rules and patterns (with minimal guidance)
To measure the above abilities, this is what the test consisted of:
1. Number Learning: the candidate aurally learns an artificial number system made up of nonsense syllables and is then asked to write the appropriate numeral for numbers when they are dictated.
2. Phonetic Script: the candidate learns from a printed script symbols for English sounds given aurally and is then tested on this learning.
3. Spelling Clues: a type of vocabulary test with English words spelled in an approximation to their sound (e.g. mblem for emblem), with multi-choice items from which the student has to select the English word corresponding most nearly in meaning with the disguised word (e.g. mblm; symbol; knfrns: discussion meeting).
4. Words in Sentences: the candidate must detect the functions of words and phrases in sentences, then identify in other sentences words which have the same function.
5. Paired Associates: the learning of 24 target language vocabulary items with English translations. Kurdish was the language used.
The other famous aptitude test was devised by Paul Pimsleur in 1966. He called it the Language Aptitude Battery (known as PLAB). The PLAB is now owned by a non-profit entity Language Learning and Testing Foundation, which acquired the rights to the test in order to ensure its continued availability to the world language teaching community. His test comprised six sub-tests, each one allocated a number of points, with the points total adding up to 117.
1. Grade-Point Average (American terminology) in academic areas other than modern language learning (18 points).
2. Interest in learning a new language (8 points).
3. Vocabulary: a test of knowledge of L1 vocabulary (24 points).
4. Language Analysis: a test of ability to discern the function of language elements in a number of forms in an unknown language for which English equivalents are given - a discovery test of sorts (15 points).
5. Sound Discrimination: the candidate learns aurally three Ewe words (Ewe is an African language) which are similar but not identical in sound. They then have to spot the correct word in sentences given aurally (30 points).
6. Sound-Symbol: recognition of the written form of of English nonsense words.
In school settings, Pimsleur notes the importance of motivation in particular (although allocates relatively few points to it, perhaps to keep the emphasis on more accurately measurable factors).
For more information about the PLAB, try this site.
Worth pointing out at this stage that the above tests are primarily about diagnosing the potential of learners, including whether learners have any disability for language learning. They also suggest a static view of aptitude - this is what you've got and it doesn't vary. this view sees aptitude as a stable trait (Singleton, 2017). As Kormos (2013), cited in Singleton (2017) put it:
"Although language-learning aptitude might seem to be a relatively stable individual characteristic when compared with other factors, such as motivational orientation and action control mechanisms, there seems to be some converging evidence that certain components of aptitude . . . might improve in the course of language learning"(p.145-146)
Reservations about these test have come in other forms too. As Li (2015) points out:
"...criticism of the MLAT has never ceased, mainly on the grounds that it was developed based on audiolingual teaching characterized by mechanical drills and rote learning and was couched in a Behaviorist view of learning. The extent to which it is sensitive to learning in more communicative approaches is arguably questionable."
Some would even take the view that such tests are mainly focused on conditions of explicit, conscious learning and that language learning is a much more implicit process, so you might need a test which tries to measure implicit learning ability.
In contrast to Carroll and Pimsleur, Robinson (2005) considered language aptitude as ‘cognitive abilities information processing draws on during L2 learning and performance in various contexts and at different stages'. This definition suggests a more dynamic view of language aptitude and is derived from the belief that aptitude is sensitive to environmental factors and is either activated or inhibited depending on different learning conditions.
Since that period, research into aptitude rather fell out of fashion, but has seen a renewed impetus with the growing interest in cognitive science. For example, Wen (2016) has been a leading proponent of the idea that working memory is a good correlate with language learning aptitude. A number of studies have shown a correlation between working memory capacity and vocabulary learning ability, for example. In particular, it's reasonable to assume that phonological working memory (that capacity of being able to hold language in working memory), plays a role in language learning aptitude. If working memory is relatively fixed (and it seems to be), then this suggests another trait, rather than a dynamic, changeable view of aptitude. But as Singleton (2017) points out, some studies have shown that working memory capacity can be developed for specific tasks, if not as an overall ability.
So what takeaways might there be for the classroom language teacher?
1. Picking up on the last point, we made the case in Breaking the Sound Barrier (Conti and Smith, 2019), following Field (2008), that focusing on the sub-skills of listening (e.g. phonemic recognition, phonics, syllables, phonotactics and intonation) you may be able to develop students' specific ability to be sensitive to sound. If this is a limiting factor in a student's aptitude, which we know it to be, then it should make sense to target these areas specifically. It's likely that by doing this, students with lower aptitude would benefit the most. In sum, consider including a specific focus on phonological awareness, pronunciation and sound-symbol correspondences (phonics), especially for languages with 'opaque' orthography like French and English.
2. If we assume that aptitude is a relatively fixed trait that we cannot do a huge amount about, recall that motivation is something over which we have much more control. This is far less fixed, as any teacher will tell you when a child's motivation is transformed by a change of class or teacher.
3. The fact that aptitude exists and is most likely a pretty fixed trait means that a certain degree of realism is called for in the classroom. Beware of over-burdening students with too much new language at a time, support listening with written transcripts, use translation judiciously to ensure meaning is always clear, use input which is highly comprehensible. This doesn't mean lowering ambition, I would say, but adapting teaching to the student and the class. For example, in my own teaching of Y10-11 classes which were set by prior attainment (and by extension to a considerable degree by aptitude), I chose to limit the amount of vocabulary and range of grammatical structures we used. Some could cope well with just a couple of tenses, but get quickly confused when faced with more to understand and use. the 'less is more' mantra makes sense here.
4. Teachers need to be aware of the particular needs of SEND students. This comes down to thorough communication between the class teacher and any staff responsible to SEND provision in the school.
5. It's clear that some students have the capacity to pick up a lot of language implicitly in a relatively short time. For the majority, this is harder. This leads many to think that a focus on some rote memory work produces benefits. This is certainly the case when it comes to exams such as the GCSE. Anecdotally, I used to mark GCSE French speaking tests for which one element was a learned presentation. I found that many candidates were able to perform well on this sort of memorised task, with its predictable and well-practised follow-up questions and answers. You can argue that this is not 'real' language acquisition, but for the student who needs to get a grade for their future education and career, this is an entirely valid thing to do, as part of a speaking test with more spontaneous elements, to compensate for a lack of aptitude.
6. Finally, because some students have very high level of language learning aptitude, it's important that that their needs are met. Some schools choose to do this by ability or prior attainment grouping (which comes with all sorts of caveats, of course). Others ensure that lesson planning includes extension work for the fastest students. In reality, however, the most telling factor is the teacher's ability to respond in the moment to the needs of all students, including the very gifted. This can happen through skilled use of formative assessment ('responsive teaching' as it has been called), smart questioning, allowing the highest achievers to shine and making sure that only the best work is acceptable.
To conclude, schools in England sometimes ask their MFL departments to conduct some kind of baseline test when new students. This should not be a measure of prior attainment, but a measure of a student's potential for language learning. In truth, this is done to set a benchmark for future tracking and accountability. At present there isn't really a suitable test to do this. In my view, the best evidence (imperfect though it is), comes from other tests students will have taken, measuring their verbal and mathematical skill.
References
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT). New York: Psychology Corporation.
Conti, G & Smith, S.P. (2019). Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching language Leaners How to Listen. Independently published.
Field, J (2008). Teaching Listening in the Languages Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
Kormos, J. (2013). New conceptualizations of language aptitude in second language attainment. Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. ed. Gisela Granena; Michael H. Long. Amsterdam : John Benjamins, 2013. p. 131-152 (Language Learning and Language Teaching; Vol. 35).
Li, S. (2015). The Associations Between Language Aptitude and Second Language Grammar Acquisition: A Meta-Analytic Review of Five Decades of Research.
Available at: https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/36/3/385/2422456?login=true
Rivers, W.M. (1981) Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. Chicago: CUP.
Robinson, (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Vol 25, 46 - 73.
Singleton, D. (2017). Language aptitude: Desirable trait or acquirable attribute?
Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137943.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment