GOOD LANGUAGE LEARNERS ARE BORN, NOT MADE?
Juliana Othman
University Malaya
ABSTRACT
Learners who attempt to learn a foreign language vary dramatically in
their rates of acquisition and in their ultimate attainment. Many of us believe
that some learners have certain innate characteristics which could lead to more
successful language learning. There is some evidence in the research literature
which seems to suggest that some individuals have the ‘aptitude’ for learning
foreign language successfully. This article discusses the aptitude factor in
influencing success in language learning and how far it can be trained so as to
facilitate successful foreign language learning outcomes.
Introduction
One of the major questions in the second language
acquisition area that has been posed frequently is the question why some people
are better at learning languages
compared to others. A popular belief is that some people have a flair
for learning second languages while others are quite poor at it. Given that
some learners come from the same background, and learn under the same
conditions and have similar motivations, why are there differential success
rates among them? Well, from various studies that have been carried out, we
know there is a host of factors which have an influence on language learning
success such as age, aptitude, motivation, personality, degree of acculturation
and cognitive style. However, it has been proven from quantification-based
studies that aptitude is at least as important and is usually more important
than any other variable investigated.
Skehan (1989) indicates that
a number of studies demonstrate a positive relationship between measures of
aptitude and measures of achievement with correlations of between 0.40 to 0.60. Correlation values from
learner traits such as personality and cognitive style are considerably lower,
i.e. less than 0.30. As Robinson (2001) points out, among the variables studied
to date, “language aptitude is the one that contributes most to accounting for
differential success rates of individual learners.”This argument is supported
by robust findings from a number of classroom language learning contexts
showing substantial positive correlations between measures of language aptitude
and second language outcomes. Studies by Carroll (1963), Pimsleur (1966), Gardner and Lambert (1972) and
Bialystok and Frohlich (1978) found a relationship between L2 aptitude and L2
learning in grammar-based instructional settings. Horwitz’s (1987) study
suggests that language aptitude is related to measures of both linguistic and
communicative competence. Skehan’s research (1986, 1990) found significant
relationships involving measures of L1 development and aptitude. As a whole,
these studies showed that language aptitude was strongly related to language
proficiency achievement.
Characteristics of Good Language Learners
As the topic of discussion in this article is ‘Good
language learners are born and not made’, let us look at the “Good language
learner” model proposed by Naiman,
Frohlich, Todesco and Stern (1978) as part of the good language learner study.
The model (see Fig. 1) consists of five boxes which represent classes of
variables in language learning. The three boxes on the left hand-side i.e.
teaching, the learner and the context are three independent causative
variables. The other two boxes, i.e. the learning and the outcome boxes are the
caused variables. The independent variables, i.e. teaching, the learner and the
context are then subdivided into various aspects. One of the drawbacks of this
model is that although it shows the range of the potential influences on
language learning success, it does not really explain much about second
language acquisition.
There have been a number of attempts to specify the
qualities of the ‘good language learner’, based on studies carried out by Rubin
(1975), Naiman et al (1978). These
studies found that “..good language learners take advantage of potentially
useful learning situations, and if necessary create them. They develop learning
techniques and strategies appropriate to their individual needs.”
Basically, there are four basic strategies which good
language learners employ:
• active planning strategy
• ‘academic’ learning strategy
• social learning strategy
• affective
learning strategy (Stern, 1983)
Good language learners, according to Stern (1983), are
prepared to study and practise. As they are aware that language is a formal
system with rules and regular relationships between language forms and meaning,
they will pay more attention to these features. They also develop the second
language as a consciously perceived system which they constantly revise until
the learning process is completed (Stern, 1983). Furthermore, they analyse the
language and use appropriate techniques of practice and memorisation. The
features that language aptitude research has identified relate very well with
the application of this strategy.
The Nature of
Language Aptitude
Cook (1991) defines aptitude as “the ability to learn
from teaching”. Aptitude has also been
defined in terms of the tests that have been used to measure it, i.e. Carroll & Sapon’s Modern Language Aptitude Test (1959) and Pimsleur’s
Language Aptitude Battery (1966). These tests measure the learner’s ability to
discriminate the meaningful sounds with written symbols and to identify the
grammatical regularities of a language. This view of aptitude assumes that
learning words by heart is an important part of L2 learning ability, that
spoken language is crucial and that grammar consists of structural patterns.
Language aptitude tests have been developed as practical instruments to
diagnose learners’ levels of proficiency and to identify their strengths and
weaknesses for the task of language learning. In a more recent review article,
Carroll (1981) states that aptitude as
“a concept corresponds to the notion that in approaching a particular
learning task or program, the individual may be thought of as possessing some
current state of capability of learning that task – if the individual is
motivated, and has the opportunity of doing so. That capability is presumed to
depend on some combination of more or less enduring characteristics of the
individual.” (1981, as cited in Skehan, 1989).”
Carroll proposed that foreign language aptitude
consists of four independent abilities:
• Phonemic coding ability – an ability to identify
distinct sounds, to be able to make
a link between sound and symbol, and to
retain these linkages;
• Grammatical sensitivity –
the ability to recognise the grammatical functions of
words in sentence structures;
• Inductive language learning ability – the ability to
infer or induce the rules governing
a set of language materials;
• Rote learning
ability for foreign language materials – the ability to learn
associations
between sounds and meanings rapidly and
efficiently and to retain these associations.
(1962 in 1981, p.105)
Language Aptitude and Language Learning Achievement
The effects of aptitude on language learning are usually
measured in terms of the levels of proficiency achieved by different classroom
learners. Aptitude scores are obtained by using either MLAT or LAB tests and
proficiency scores consisting of the results of a language test or teachers’
grades. These two sets of scores are then statistically correlated using the
Pearson Product Moment Coefficient. By using this statistical tool, it is
possible for us to state the degree of variance in the proficiency scores that
can be accounted for by aptitude. For instance, results of a study carried out
by Gardner (1980) showed a median correlation of r= 0.41 between the Modern
Language Aptitude Test Scores of English speaking Canadian school children in
different classes throughout Canada and their grade levels in French. In other
words, approximately 16 per cent of the total variance in the grade levels can
be accounted for by aptitude. The results of Gardner’s studies support the
argument that aptitude is an important factor in predicting performance in
foreign language courses. This view is also supported by Krashen (1981) who
believes that aptitude can predict language learning achievement in formal
classroom situations.
A study of foreign language aptitude
carried out by Skehan (1989) also showed that aptitude has an influence on the
success of foreign language learning. Skehan’s study was conducted as a
follow-up to the Bristol Language Project (Wells, 1985) in which the first
language development of 125 children was studied longitudinally. 64 subjects
out of the original 125 subjects were given a test of general verbal
intelligence and a battery of aptitude tests. As the children went on to study
in secondary school, Skehan found a high correlation between language aptitude
and foreign language achievement. He also found positive correlations between
first language development and foreign language aptitude. Skehan (1989) thinks
that aptitude tests are good in predicting achievement as they tap relevant
linguistic skills and knowledge and also draw on examinees’ ability to use
decontextualised language. He states that “aptitude tests are effective
predictors because both the component abilities (i.e. language processing
ability and the ability to handle decontextualised material) are important for
language learning success.”
The current view on aptitude is that it is not
something that a person either has or has not. Stern (1983) points out that
aptitude is not a “single entity but a composite of different characteristics
which come into play in second language learning”. This view relates very well
with the theory that proficiency is a composite and that language learning is
“not monolithic”. Language aptitude then consists of several elements which
learners have in various levels.
Skehan (1986) studied
soldiers learning foreign languages and found three groups of successful
learners:
1. “Memory-based” learners were usually younger and were not particularly sensitive to grammar but
had good memories.
2. “Analytic” learners were slightly older
and were poorer at memory but had good
grammatical sensitivity.
3. “Even” learners were good overall.
Therefore, there seemed to be two sides of aptitude:
a memory-based side and a language-based side. Lack of memory capability in older
students can be compensated for by greater grammatical sensitivity. Lack of
grammatical sensitivity in younger students can be compensated for by better
memory. Students do well if they have
both attributes but they also do well if they have either of them.
Criticisms on
Language Aptitude
There are a number of criticisms regarding language aptitude. One of the
criticisms is that the MLAT and LAB tests are not measuring innate aptitude for
language proficiency. Ellis (1985) argued that these tests do not explicitly
assess the oral ability which is part of language proficiency. He points out
that “SLA involves not only the ability to learn sound and grammar systems, but
also the ability to use these systems to communicate meanings.” It is also
argued that language aptitude tests succeed in predicting success because there
is a concordance of tasks between the test and formal classroom study, not
because the test is measuring some innate linguistic ability.
Another criticism concerns
what aspect of SLA is affected by aptitude. According to Krashen (1981), SLA
can be classified into two aspects; acquisition and learning. Acquisition is
the subconscious internalisation of L2 knowledge that occurs through using the
L2 naturally and spontaneously. Learning, Krashen says, is the conscious study
of a L2 that results in knowledge about the rules of the language.
Krashen (1981) argues that aptitude relates only to
learning. Aptitude, according to him, is only an important factor for formal
language study associated with classrooms. He points out that the MLAT only
tests the kind of skills which are associated with formal study. However,
empirical evidence shows that this is not the case. Reves (1983) studied the
role of aptitude, motivation, cognitive style, and learning strategies as
potential predictors of language learning success, in formal and informal
situations. Her subjects were L2 Arabic speakers in Israel acquiring Hebrew in
informal settings and learning English under classroom conditions. She found
that prediction was less effective in the formal learning environment. In
informal situations, it was aptitude that was the most effective predictor of
language learning success. This confirms the claim that the set of skills
tapped by aptitude tests are relevant to both formal and informal settings.
Another controversial issue concerning language aptitude is
whether or not it can be developed. Neufeld (1978) believes that one’s ability
in learning a second language is not innate, but dependent upon one’s previous
learning experiences. Neufeld suggests that we are all equipped to master basic
language skills. However, the extent of mastery of the high level skills
depends on one’s intelligence. Oller and Perkins (1978) also share the same
view. They do not accept the existence of aptitude for language acquisition.
They argue that intelligence is responsible for most of the variance in a wide
variety of language measures.
Carroll (1981) on the other hand,
believes that intelligence and aptitude are not identical. He points out that
foreign language aptitude measures correlate differently with foreign language
achievement than does intelligence. In addition, he argues that learners’
aptitude is difficult to alter through training. Carroll (1981) states that
language aptitude is “relatively fixed over long periods of an individual’s
life span, and relatively hard to modify in any significant way.” Skehan (1989)
also shares Carroll’s view. He explains that aptitude provides a more accurate
assessment of language processing ability and the ability to handle
decontextualised language as compared to intelligence. Therefore, aptitude is a
more powerful predictor of language learning success than intelligence. Skehan
(1989) cites that Politzer and Weiss’s (1969) attempt to train learners to
perform better on the component sub-tests of the MLAT was unsuccessful.
Evidence reported in the follow-up research to the Bristol language project
(1988) is consistent with this conclusion since it too suggests aptitude
stability. Thus, this seems to indicate that aptitude is not particularly trainable.
Having said that, we should bear in mind
that aptitude is only one of the learner factors which influences language
learning success. Other learner factors such as motivation, attitude and personality
are just as influential as aptitude.
Highly motivated learners and learners with extrovert personalities are usually
successful in earning language. Furthermore, variables such as teaching factors
and the learning context also have a strong influence on successful language
learning. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to accept that nothing can be
done. With the information that we obtain about learners’ strengths and
weaknesses from aptitude tests, we can design language courses where the syllabuses
and methodologies reflect the learners’ needs. Since L2 aptitude has a direct
impact on L2 learning outcomes, it is thus important for course designers to
take aptitudinal differences into account in order to maximise learners’
potential for success.
Enhancing the Abilities of L2 Learners
There are several ways in which L2
learning capabilities can be enhanced. The first is through training that might
directly increase one or more of the abilities that comprise language aptitude.
However, studies have shown that such training is not effective. Yeni-Komshian
(1965) and Politzer and Weiss (1969) were not successful in improving phonetic
coding ability.
Another possibility for improving
language learning ability is to train learners’ language learning strategies.
Poor learners can be taught to practise the strategies used by successful
language learners. O’Malley and Chamot (1990: 162) state that “individuals with
a special aptitude for learning foreign languages may simply be learners who
have found on their own, the strategies that are particularly effective for
efficient language learning.” The few
studies of learner strategy training that have been published to date have not
yielded impressive results. O’Malley et al. (1985) attempted to train intermediate
level ESL learners on different types of vocabulary learning strategies. They
found that neither the metacognitive self-evaluation nor the cognitive imagery
and grouping tasks made any difference on vocabulary list learning.
Wenden (1987) conducted a learner
training programme for advanced ESL students. The students took part in a
seven-week intensive programme which was devoted to strategies instruction,
through mini-lectures and readings on learner-strategies, with follow-up
comprehension exercises and discussions in class, and practice tasks which
focused on diary writing outside class.
Wenden reported disappointing results as less than half of the students
found that the learner training tasks had been useful.
In a more recent study, Cohen, Weaver
& Li (1997) conducted experimental classes featuring strategies-based
instruction which “includes not only the typical presentation, discussion,
promotion, and practice of strategies, but also the added element of explicit
integration of training into the very fabric of the instructional program.”
Cohen et al. (1997) found that the
experimental classes performed significantly better on the aggregate
ratings on the tasks tested.
Another
suggestion is to stream learners into different classes for different levels of
aptitude. Teachers could give graded exercises, i.e. easy, average, difficult
within the class and if possible, incorporate self-directed learning. Skehan
(1989) suggests that “different types of instruction may be effective with
different types of learners using analytically oriented materials at
appropriate levels. Memory oriented learners could similarly be provided with
suitable materials which suit their predisposition to assimilate unanalysed
material”. He adds that we could use the information on learners’ aptitude to
“maximise the level of proficiency achieved and increase the rate at which
different learner types progress.”
Wesche
(1981) reports that streaming led to
greater student and teacher satisfaction. Indeed, when comparisons were made
between ‘analytic’ students placed in the Audiolingual class, mismatched
learners were found in both L2 achievement and in attitudes. However, given the emphasis of the
communicative approach to L2 teaching, it is relatively unlikely that learners
would have the option of taking a grammar-based or audiolingual course.
Matching is most likely to take place daily as teachers choose the most
appropriate learning activities for their students.
Robinson (2001) suggests that another
approach to accommodate learners’ aptitudinal differences is to adopt a
compensatory approach and teach remedial lessons to address learners’
weaknesses. Sparks, et al. (1991) studied L2 learning
problems faced by individuals who have weak phonemic coding ability. They reported
that learners who flounder in a naturalistic learning environment require some kind of structured approach.
They should be given more direct forms of L2 instruction such as the
multi-sensory structured language approach. This type of instruction was found
to be effective for learning-disabled students studying Latin.
In addition, Skehan (1998) points out that in communication-oriented instructional settings, learners who are analysis-driven will be able to impose structure but will not be able to perform such structural analyses without assistance. They need to have a focus on form provided for them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, from the
many studies of language aptitude conducted since the 1960s, we can see that
conclusive findings are still rare. More research is needed to determine
whether language aptitude is an innate ability and how far it can be trained so
as to facilitate successful L2 learning outcomes. Personally, I believe that
some people are born to be good language learners but others can be ‘helped’ to
become good.
References
Carroll, J.B
& Sapon, S.M. 1959.
Modern Language Aptitude
Test (MLAT) N.Y: The
Psychological
Corporation/Harcourt Brace.
Carroll, J.B.
1981. Twenty-five Years of Research on Foreign Language
Aptitude. In K.C.
Diller (ed.) Individual
Differences in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Cohen, Weaver & Li
1997. The Impact of Strategies-Based Iinstruction in Speaking a Foreign
Language. Minneapolis MN:
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition
(CARLA): University of
Minnesota.
Cook, V. 1991. Second
Language Learning and Language Teaching.
London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. &
Lambert, W. 1972. Attitudes and
Motivation in Language
Learning.
Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Gardner, R.
1980. On the validity of affective variables in
second language acquisition:
conceptual, contextual and
statistical considerations. Language
Learning, 30: 255-70.
Horwitz, E. 1987. Linguistic
and Communicative Competence: Reassessing foreign language
aptitude. In Van Patten et al (eds). Foreign
Language Learning: A Research
Perspective.
New York: Newbury House.
Krashen, S.
1981. Second Language Acquisition
and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Naiman,N., Frohlich,
Stern & Todesco. 1978. The Good Language Learner. Cited in Stern.
1983. Fundamental
Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neufeld, G. 1978. A theoretical
perspective on the nature of linguistic
aptitude. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 16:15-26.
O’Malley, J., Chamot, A. et
al. 1985. Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate
ESL students. Language
Learning, 35:21-46.
O’Malley, J.
& Chamot , A. 1990.
Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: CUP.
Oller, J. &
Perkins, K. 1978.
A further comment
on language proficiency as a
source of
variance in certain affective
measures. Language Learning, 28: 417-23.
Pimsleur, P. 1966. Pimsleur
Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB). New York: The Psychological
Corporation.
Politzer, R.L
& Weiss, L. 1969.
An Experiment in Improving
Achievement in Foreign
Language Learning
through Learning of
Selected Skills Associated with
Language
Aptitude. Stanford University, Stanford,CA. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 046261).
Reves, T.
1983. What Makes
a Good Language Learner? Personal
characteristics
contributing to successful
language acquistion. Unpublished Ph.D
dissertation. Hebrew
University, Jerusalem.
Robinson, P. 2001. Cognition
and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: CUP.
Rubin, J. 1975. What the
‘Good Language Learner’ can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1)
Skehan, P. 1986. Where Does
Language Aptitude Come from? In Meara
(ed.) Spoken
Language. London: CILT.
Sparks, R.,
Ganshow, L., Kennewegs, S., & Miller, K. 1991. Use
of an Orton- Gillingham
approach to teaching
a foreign language
to dyslexic/ learning disabled students:
Explicit teaching of
phonology in a second language. Annals of
Dyslexia, 41: 96-118.
Stern, H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford:
OUP.
Wells, C. G. 1985. Language
Development in the Pre-School Years.
Cambridge: CUP.
Wenden, A. 1987. How to be a Successful Learner: Insights and
prescriptions from L2 learners.
In Wenden & Rubin (eds.) Learner
Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wesche, M.B.
1981. Language Aptitude Measures
in Streaming Matching Students with
Methods, and Diagnosis of Learning Problems. In K.C Diller (ed.) Individual Differences
and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude, pp. 119-154. Rowley, MA : Newbury
House.
Yeni-Komshian, G. 1965.
Training Pocedures for Developing Auditory Perceptual Skills in
the Sound System
of a Foreign Language.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. McGill
University.