Post on 28-Mar-2023
Aptitudes for Explicit and Implicit
Learning at Cross-Purposes?
University of Northern Iowa, TESOL Alumni Lectures April 14, 2015
Katya Solovyeva University of Maryland, College Park
Outline
Classic aptitude research = explicit
Individual differences in implicit learning
How independent?
Aptitude in Second Language Research
Predictive validity across contexts: naturalistic,
communicative, immersion
Ehrman & Oxford (1995)
Sawyer & Ranta (2001)
Harley & Hart (1997)
Overlaps with
Explicit reasoning and verbal intelligence: Dörnyei (2005)
First language literacy: Skehan (1991)
Implicit Learning
Early—ontogeny, philogeny; robust, invariable Reber, 1989
Unrelated to psychometric intelligence Reber, Walkenfeld, &
Hernstadt (1991)
Dissociation in SLA: Krashen (1981)
Implicit Learning and Language
Kaufmann et al. (2010), Cogn.
SEM study of implicit learning
IL (SRT) predicted by processing speed, verbal
reasoning (independently of g)
correlated with French (.27), German (.35) exam
scores
explicit associative learning correlated with g (.44),
Ravens matrices (.27), verbal reasoning (.25),
processing speed (.17)
Implicit Learning and Language Processing
Conway (2010)
IL (visual task) correlates with predictive mechanisms
involved in speech perception under degraded
conditions
Misyak & Christiansen (2012), n=30
Auditory statistical learning (non-word tokens) of
adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies
A C E & AP-BP
aXe X=2 syllables
Both types of statistical learning related to L1 sentence
comprehension
Implicit Learning in Aptitude Research
Testing ground for role of explicit aptitude in different
settings
Including incidental (“implicit”)
De Graaff (1997): aptitude positively related to learning under
implicit and explicit conditions
Robinson (1996, 1997): aptitude related to implicit (verbatim
memorization), rule-search learners but not incidental learners
(processing for meaning)
Incidental/Implicit learning in adults subject to cognitive
IDs—if relevant to processing demands
Design
Implicit learning ability in verbal domain:
Primeability—benefit from repeated presentation of stimulus
Automatic rather than controlled
Assessed using primed lexical decision administered twice
measure of perceptual facilitation from repeated experience
“primeability” is difference score
LLAMA aptitude battery:
Paired associate learning
Phoneme-grapheme correspondences
Phonetic discrimination/memory
Syntactic analysis
Meara (2003)
Discussion and Open Questions
Non-trivial individual differences in implicit learning ability
Small to medium effect size (Cohen’s d = .49)
True relationship (between latent factors) may be 0
rather than negative
In high-aptitude individuals, low-level perceptual efficiency
may be masked by later application of executive functions
To distinguish
Sequencing effects
EF-demandingImplicit > ImplicitEF-demanding
Partialing out EF functions from aptitude: correlation should
disappear
Discussion (contd.)
Does this study show a negative relationship?
Is a negative relationship feasible?
Why a Negative Relationship Makes Sense
Computational modeling of the prefrontal cortex—basal ganglia modulation Dopamine-regulated gating mechanism in the basal ganglia
Adapted from Hazy et al. (2006)
Factor Analysis in SLA
Instructions emphasizing accuracy vs speed of response
modulate behavioral expressions of implicit learning
Hoyndorf & Haider (2009)
Granena (2013)—factor analysis (!)
WM, STM, processing speed, LLAMA B E F D attention
Intelligence LLAMA B E F D SRT
NEGATIVE