International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education
Abbreviation: IJIAPE | ISSN (Print): 2602-4780 | ISSN (Online): 2602-4489 | DOI: 10.29329/ijiape

Original article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education 2022, Vol. 6(4) 282-295

Foreign Language Aptitude Examined in relation to Implicit and Explicit Grammar Instruction

Özgür Çelik

pp. 282 - 295   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiape.2022.503.6

Published online: December 31, 2022  |   Number of Views: 13  |  Number of Download: 34


Abstract

Language aptitude (LA) is one of the primary individual differences with which the language learning ability of learners can be foreseen. This quasi-experimental study aims to contribute to the LA literature by investigating the role of LA in explicit and implicit grammar instruction. To do so, LLAMA_D aptitude test was administered to 133 participants, and from this cohort group, four subgroups were formed. A one-session course was designed and delivered to participants with a pre and post-test. The results indicated that there is a significant correlation between implicit instruction and the LA level of the participants. However, based on the Pearson Correlation results, it can be concluded that LA is a stronger determinant in the achievement of learners than the type of instruction. It can be suggested, therefore, that taking LA level into consideration before planning implicit or explicit instruction would contribute to the effectiveness of the instruction.

Keywords: Language Aptitude, Implicit Instruction, Explicit Instruction, LLAMA Aptitude Tests


How to Cite this Article

APA 6th edition
Celik, O. (2022). Foreign Language Aptitude Examined in relation to Implicit and Explicit Grammar Instruction . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education, 6(4), 282-295. doi: 10.29329/ijiape.2022.503.6

Harvard
Celik, O. (2022). Foreign Language Aptitude Examined in relation to Implicit and Explicit Grammar Instruction . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education, 6(4), pp. 282-295.

Chicago 16th edition
Celik, Ozgur (2022). "Foreign Language Aptitude Examined in relation to Implicit and Explicit Grammar Instruction ". International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education 6 (4):282-295. doi:10.29329/ijiape.2022.503.6.

References
  1. Artieda, G., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The LLAMA tests and the underlying structure of language aptitude at two levels of foreign language proficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory. New York; NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Carroll, J. (1981) Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. [Google Scholar]
  5. Carroll, J. B. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. In T. S. Parry & C. W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language in education: Theory and practice 74. Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 11-27). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics/CAL; Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice Hall Regents/Prentice Hall. Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern language aptitude test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  6. de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197002064 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/329394 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Ellis, N. C. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49(1), 234-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249896392883 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Erlam, R. (2005) Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–71. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr161oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Higgs, T., & Krashen, S. (1983). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 67(2), 168. https://doi.org/10.2307/328293 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea: Lognostics. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nation, R., & McLaughlin, B. (1986) Novices and experts: an information processing approach to the ‘good language learner’ problem. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400007177 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  16. Petersen, C. R., & Al-Haik, A. R. (1976). The development of the defense language aptitude battery (DLAB). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36(2), 369-380. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447603600216 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Pimsleur, P. (1968). Aptitude testing. Language learning, 18, 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1968.tb00223.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Reber, A., Walkenfeld, F., & Hernstadt, R. (1991). Implicit and explicit learning: Individual differences and IQ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(5), 888-896. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.17.5.888 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Robinson, P. (1995). Aptitude, awareness, and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 9, 303-357. [Google Scholar]
  20. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27-67. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100014674 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Robinson, P. (2002) Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: a framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rogers, V., Meara, P., Barnett-Legh, T., Curry, C., & Davie, E. (2017). Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests.. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 1(1), 49–60. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.24 [Google Scholar]
  23. Sasaki, M. (1999). Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence. New York, NY: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sheen, Y. (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275-298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009979 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning, 2, 69-94. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.06ske [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Skehan, P. (2016). Foreign language aptitude, acquisitional sequences, and psycholinguistic processes. In G. Granena, D. O. Jackson, & Y. Yilmaz (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 17– 40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.3.02ske [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Tagarelli, K. M., Mota, M. B., & Rebuschat, P. (2011). The role of working memory in implicit and explicit language learning. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 33.  Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0r55c3fk [Google Scholar]
  30. The jamovi project (2019). jamovi. (Version 0.9) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. [Google Scholar]
  32. VanPatten, B., & Smith, M. (2015). Aptitude as grammatical sensitivity and the initial stages of learning Japanese as a L2: Parametric variation and case marking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(1), 135-165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000345 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Williams, J. N. (1999) Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Yilmaz, Y. (2012). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344-368. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams044 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]