Methodology in Language Learning: Language Aptitude and Age

Does language aptitude change with age either in a positive or in a negative way? On the one hand, if language aptitude is indeed a trait, it should be relatively stable. Intelligence, for example, has been found to be remarkably stable.  The other side of the coin, however, is that age is a central factor in an individual’s language learning capacity—as evidenced by the vast amount of literature on the ‘critical period hypothesis’ addressing age-related changes in SLA—and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that some of the age-related variation is mediated through aptitude changes that occur over time.

 

In sum, there are several findings in this study that provide some support nor the argument that analytical language ability is more closely associated with second language outcomes when intensive exposure to the language is first experienced in adolescence. This relationship appears to hold, though not as strongly, even when exposure takes place in an environment outside the second language classroom.

 

One of the most persistent issues in the L2 aptitude literature has been the relationship between language aptitude and general intelligence. This is understandable: If the predictive power of language aptitude is almost entirely due to the commonalities it shares with intelligence, we would need to reconsider the importance attached to the construct, whereas if we find that aptitude exerts its influence above that of intelligence, that would confirm the validity of the concept. Of course, we should realize that the whole issue is somewhat artificial because past research has revealed that both intelligence and language aptitude are composite constructs, subsuming a number of distinct components. Therefore, it is likely that instead of a clear-cut relationship between the two higher-order factors (i.e., ‘intelligence’ and ‘language aptitude’) there is a complex pattern of interrelationships between their constituent components: Some cognitive components of general (i.e., non-language-specific) mental abilities will undoubtedly play a role in one’s language learning capacity, whereas some others might be irrelevant. It all depends on how we conceptualize the two constructs and what learning situation we are considering (the situational dependence of language aptitude will be discussed in detail later).

 

 

There are a variety of reasons for which aptitude test scores can be used:

Ø Research: An unambiguous area of employing aptitude tests is in research studies in which scholars want to control for or further investigate cognitive ability factors.

Ø Selection: The most obvious application of a language aptitude test is in selection procedures and, indeed, most of the tests described earlier have been used as selection devices in different contexts. The Defense Language Aptitude Battery, for example, was developed and employed for the purpose of the selection of army personnel for intensive language training programs. By doing so it was hoped that the costs of the training and the amount of time it took could be reduced and hopeless language learners could be screened out.

Ø Allocating resources: By streaming language learners according to their aptitude scores, program administrators can have a more precise understanding of the extent of extra resources that the lower-aptitude groups might need to achieve the required level of proficiency.

 

 

 

Ø Program evaluation: By administering aptitude tests it may be possible to compare the learners’ actual achievement with the achievement one might expect on the basis of their L2 learning ability. This would allow for a more accurate evaluation of the effectiveness of language teaching programs.

Ø Tailoring instruction to the learners’ aptitude level: From an educational point of view this might be the most interesting line of research. Several scholars have suggested that aptitude tests can be used to identify the particular cognitive strengths and learning style preferences of groups of learners, so that this diagnostic information can be used to tailor the quality and quantity of language instruction accordingly. Let us stop here for a moment and elaborate on this issue.

 

Profiling individual differences in cognitive abilities, and matching these profiles to effective instructional options, such as types of pedagogic tasks, interventionist ‘focus on form’ techniques, and more broadly defined learning conditions, is a major aim of pedagogically oriented language aptitude research.

 

The term language aptitude is becoming increasingly restricted to refer to composite measures obtained by means of aptitude batteries, whereas scholars who focus on specific cognitive abilities, such as working memory, tend to avoid using the term. Contextually sensitive measures of language aptitude open up brand new possibilities for integrating aptitude research into mainstream SLA studies, and they also allow researchers to link cognitive abilities to instructed SLA and classroom practice in a useful way.

©

 

University of Oxford - post gradual studies 2009 'English Language Teaching'

 

Bibliography:

 

1)  Blundell, Lesley and Stokes, Jackie, Task listening, Cambridge University Press, 198r.

 

2)  Gore, Lesley, Listening to Maggie, Longman, 1979.

 

3)  McClintock, John and Stern, Borje, Let's listen, Heinemann Educational Books, 1974.

 

4)  Maley, Alan and Moulding, Sandra, Learning to listen, CambridgeUniversity Press, 198 I.

 

5)  Scott, Wendy, Are you listening?, Oxford University Press, 1980.

 

6)  Stokes, Jacqueline StClair, Elementary task listening, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984.

 

7)  Underwood, Mary and Barr, Pauline, Listeners (series), Oxford University Press, 1980.

 

8)  Abbs, Brian and Jones, T., Cloudsongs, Longman, 1977.

 

9)  Abbs, Brian and York, N., Skyhigh, Longman, 1975.

 

10)         Jones, Christopher, Back home, Longman, 1980.

 

11)         Kingsbury, Roy, and O'Shea, Patrick, Seasons and people and other songs,Oxford University Press, 1979.

 

12)         Wilson, Ken, Mister Monday and other songs for the teaching of English,Longman, 197r.

 

13)         Wilson, Ken and Morrow, Keith, Goodbye rainbow, Longman, 1974.

 

14)         Seidl, Jennifer and McMordie, W., English idioms and how to use them, Oxford University Press, 1978.

 

15)         Wilson, F. P. (ed. ), Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs, Oxford University Press, 1970.

 

16)         Brown, Gillian, Listening to spoken English, Longman, 1977.

 

17)         Brown, Gillian, 'Understanding spoken language', TESOL Quarterly 12:2, 1978.

 

18)         Brown, Gillian and Yule, George, Teaching the spoken language, Cambridge University Press, 1983.

 

19)         Byrne, Donn, 'Listening comprehension', Teaching oral English, Longman, 1976.

 

20)         Crystal, David and Davy, Derek, Investigating English style, Longman, 1969:

 

21)         Curfs, Emile, 'Listening deserves better', Modern English Teacher 9:3, 1982.

 

22)         Geddes, Marion, 'Listening', inK. Johnson and K. Morrow (eds. ),

 

23)         Communication in the classroom, Longman, 1981. Geddes, Marion and White, Ron, 'The use of semi-scripted simulated authentic speech and listening comprehension', Audio-visual Language journal, 1978.

 

24)         Littlewood, William, Communicative language teaching, Cambridge University Press, 198 I.

 

25)         Maley, Alan, 'The teaching of listening comprehension skills', Modern English Teacher, 1978.

 

26)         Porter, Don and Roberts, Jon, 'Authentic listening activities', English Language Teaching]ournal, 1981.

 

27)         Richards, Jack C., 'Listening comprehension', TESOL Quarterly, 1983.

 

28)         Rivers, Wilga, 'Hearing and comprehending', Teaching foreign language skills (revised edn.), University of Chicago Press, 1980. Widdowson, Henry, Teaching language as communication, Oxford University Press, 1978. The teaching of listening comprehension, British Council, E.L. T. Documents Special, 1981