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)

Results

Individuals differ in ability to benefit from repetition

True negatives or noisy positives?

Results: Implicit Learning and LLAMA

r = -.25, p = .07

Power for .05-level tests is .43

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

Behavioral Evidence

Instructions emphasizing accuracy vs speed of response

modulate behavioral expressions of implicit learning

Hoyndorf & Haider (2009)

This should not be happening! Cf., Reber