Language aptitude is often considered an important variable in language learning, yet it is quite difficult to define. Researchers have considered it to be a construct consisting of numerous components such as sound decoding ability, grammar sensitivity, inductive ability, associative memory, processing speed, retrieval ability, inductive ability, and working memory capacity. The authors of the following study focused on how working memory capacity (WMC) mediated the effects of language learning under various conditions for students learning a language from scratch (ab initio language learning). They found that WMC aids practice when grammar instruction does not occur. When grammar instruction does occur, it “levels the field” for both low- and high- WMC learners. Clear implications are given after the summary.

Article

Sanz, C., Lin, H. J., Lado, B., Stafford, C. A., & Bowden, H. W. (2016). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in Ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 669-692.

Background Studies on WMC and Language Learning

There have been a great deal of studies on the interaction between WMC and language learning. Here is a quick overview of the finding Sanz et al. references:

• WMC may help language learners in more implicit language learning settings
• WMC effects have been more pronounced on delayed post-tests
  • This may be due to the longer time it takes to consolidate new knowledge
• WMC may play a role in production when no production practice occurs
• Explicit instruction and production practice “neutralize” individual differences in aptitude
  • This means those with higher WMC have no advantage in these situations
• Corrective feedback via oral recasts (but not oral metalinguistic) had were related to better written and spoken accuracy for those with higher WMC
• WMC did not have an effect on oral meta linguistic feedback

Experiments

Sanz et al. conducted two experiments. For the first experiment, grammar instruction was included. For the second experiment, no grammar was included.

• Population
  • Native-English speaking young adult (18-32) learners of Spanish with no knowledge of Latin (experiment 1: 23; experiment 2: 21)
• Language focus
  • the focus of these experiments were learning nominative and accusative Latin case endings for nouns in order to decide “who did what to whom” (p. 676).
• Experimental design – all treatment and tests were done via computer
  • Session 1
    • background questionnaire
    • working memory test
      • listen to 3-5 sentences
      • judge grammar and semantic correctness of each sentence
      • recall final word of each sentence
    • vocabulary lesson and test
    • language pre-tests
  • Session 2
    • treatments
      • Experiment 1: grammar lesson + practice with explicit feedback (including metalinguistic information)
      • Experiment 2: practice + explicit feedback (including metalinguistic information)
        • To keep time on task the same, extra practice was given during this experiment, which meant these participants heard more exemplars and received more feedback
    • language post-tests (vocab and then grammar)
  • Session 3
    • delayed post-test (2 weeks later)
    • exit questionnaire
• Tests
  • written interpretation
    • read a sentence and choose which picture it represents
  • aural interpretation
    • hear a sentence and choose which picture it represents
    • this test put more demand on cognitive resources
  • written grammaticality judgement
    • read a sentence and decide if it represents the picture

Results

• Experiment 1: test gains were significant (and were retained for the delayed post test), however WMC did not have a significant relationship to the scores
• Experiment 2: test gains were significant (and were retained for the delayed post test except for grammar judgement scores), and there was signficant relationships between WMC and the aural (pre to post) and written scores (pre to delayed post).

Discussion

• WMC plays a role when there is no explicit grammar instruction prior to practice
  • WMC is responsible for processing new information and those with higher WMC can do so more effectively
  • This is clearly a sign of WMC as an important component of aptitude
• When grammar instruction occurs before practice, “WMC does not predict language development” (p. 686).
• For those with higher WMC, the benefits are often delayed (as delayed post-tests showed in this and other research)
• When instruction was provided (i.e. through feedback), WMC still played a role in helping “to process and store language information” and this points to a suggestion that the timing and type of instruction may be more important than the amount:

It makes sense that WMC, which reflects learners’ ability to process and store linguistic information, plays a role when instruction is provided as part of feedback in a piecemeal fashion rather than in bulk prior to practice. (p. 687)

Implications

There are a number of implications related to this research. Sanz et al. given two clear examples (p. 688):

assigning homework that provides a structured  grammar lesson prior to practice may benefit students with lower WMC who might otherwise struggle with explicit input

given a negative relationship between aging and WMC, a teacher working with older learners may optimize learning by offering a traditional grammar lesson that acts as an advanced organizer and avoid explicit feedback during practice, as this places a heavy load on WMC.

Final Commentary

Aptitude is clearly a complex phenomenon that still requires much research, especially in terms of how it affects language learning. However, aptitude and WM testing combined with customized instruction will likely never be feasible. Therefore, it is nice to know that explicit instruction and feedback works to “level the field” in language instruction and makes it possible for all learners to benefit. Of course, this does not mean that traditional instruction in the form of lengthy grammar lessons and audiolingual practice is superior. Rather, it means that explicit instruction coupled with practice and explicit feedback (i.e. the timing and type) of instruction is very important. While some learners – those with high WMC – may benefit from more implicit or naturalistic language learning settings (for example, immersion or study abroad), it’s comforting to know that our language learning success is not solely determined by our brains, something we cannot have control over. As such, the educational determinism of our aptitude can be circumvented quite easily by careful pedagogy.

If you’d like to test your own WMC, you can complete the online test at GoCognitive.

Featured Photo by followtheseinstructions