Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



To explore the value of introspective measures in aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) research, this study analyzed the cognitive profiles and concurrent think-alouds of six university learners of Japanese who were highly successful, moderately successful, or unsuccessful under two computer-mediated feedback conditions in a larger ( = 80) quantitative ATI investigation (Sachs, 2011). That study had made indirect inferences regarding relationships among individual differences (IDs), cognitive processes, and learning on the basis of correlational results. Using Leow’s (2015) depth-of-processing (DoP) framework as a lens, what we found in the qualitative verbalization data highlighted that learners in the same condition with similar strengths in the IDs that are statistically associated with performance at the group level may nonetheless engage in different cognitive processes and achieve different learning outcomes, and vice versa. The findings also pointed toward more complex ID-DoP and ID-ID interactions that future research could explore, such as the possibility that a weakness in memory might limit the benefits of metalinguistic knowledge and analytic processing in a condition where group-level correlations suggest analysis is relevant to success, or that analytic processing might enhance the value of memory in a condition where memory is relevant to success. In our conclusions, we argue for the value of mixed-methods research in this area.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adrada-Rafael, S.
    (2017) Processing the Spanish imperfect subjunctive: Depth of processing under different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 477–508. 10.1017/S0142716416000308
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000308 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker-Smemoe, W., & Haslam, N.
    (2013) The effect of language learning aptitude, strategy use, and learning context on L2 pronunciation learning. Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 435–456. 10.1093/applin/ams066
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams066 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bowles, M. A.
    (2010) Concurrent verbal reports in second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 111–127. 10.1017/S0267190510000036
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000036 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brooks, P. J., Kempe, V., & Sionov, A.
    (2006) The role of learner and input variables in learning inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 185–209. 10.1017/S0142716406060243
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060243 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M.
    (1959) Modern Language Aptitude Test. Rockville, MD: Second Language Testing.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DeKeyser, R. M.
    (1993) The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1993.tb01999.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01999.x [Google Scholar]
  7. DeKeyser, R.
    (2012) Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62(S2), 189–210. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00712.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00712.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Della Sala, S., Gray, C., Baddeley, A., & Wilson, L.
    (1997) The Visual Patterns Test: A test of short-term visual recall. Suffolk: Thames Valley Test Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dennett, D.
    (2003) Who’s on first? Heterophenomenology explained. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Duff, P. A.
    (2012) How to carry out case-study research. InA. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language research: A practical guide (pp.95–116). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, R.
    (2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2004.00255.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Erlam, R.
    (2005) Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171. 10.1191/1362168805lr161oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr161oa [Google Scholar]
  13. Goo, J.
    (2012) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474. 10.1017/S0272263112000149
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000149 [Google Scholar]
  14. Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y.
    (2019) Language aptitude profiles and the effectiveness of implicit and explicit corrective feedback. InR. P. Leow (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp.438–451). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315165080‑30
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-30 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hsieh, H-C., Moreno, N., & Leow, R. P.
    (2016) Awareness, type of medium, and L2 development: Revisiting Hsieh (2008). InR. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp.131–150). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hwu, F., & Sun, S.
    (2012) The aptitude-treatment interaction effects on the learning of grammar rules. System, 40, 505–521. 10.1016/j.system.2012.10.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A.
    (2014) The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428–452. 10.1177/1362168813519373
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813519373 [Google Scholar]
  18. Leow, R. P.
    (2015) Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, S.
    (2013) The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.12030.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J.
    (2002) Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7–32. 10.1558/cj.v20i1.7‑32
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v20i1.7-32 [Google Scholar]
  21. Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y. Y., & Wong, P. C. M.
    (2011) Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 461–472. 10.1121/1.3593366
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3593366 [Google Scholar]
  22. Rassaei, E.
    (2013) Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development. System, 41(2), 472–483. 10.1016/j.system.2013.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Rebuschat, P.
    (2014) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63, 595–626. 10.1111/lang.12010
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12010 [Google Scholar]
  24. Robinson, P.
    (1997) Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99. 10.1111/0023‑8333.21997002
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.21997002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P.
    (2004) Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269–292. 10.1017/S0142716404001134
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001134 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sachs, R. R.
    (2011) Individual differences and the effectiveness of visual feedback on reflexive binding in L2 Japanese (Open-access doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University. Retrieved from https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/pubnum/3450858.html
  27. Sachs, R., & Nakatsukasa, K.
    (2019) Aptitude-treatment interactions in depth of processing: Individual differences and prior linguistics coursework predict learners’ approaches to computer-mediated language learning activities. InR. P. Leow (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp.422–437). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315165080‑29
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-29 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schmidt, R.
    (2001) Attention. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sheen, Y.
    (2007a) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  30. (2007b) The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. InA. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Skehan, P.
    (2002) Theorising and updating aptitude. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp.69–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.2.06ske
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.06ske [Google Scholar]
  32. Slabakova, R.
    (2008) Meaning in the second language. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211511
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211511 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tagarelli, K. M., Ruiz, S., Vega, J. L. M., & Rebuschat, P.
    (2016) Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 293–316. doi:  10.1017/S0272263116000036
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000036 [Google Scholar]
  34. Thomas, M.
    (1995) Acquisition of the Japanese reflexive zibun and movement of anaphors in Logical Form. Second Language Research, 11(3), 206–234. 10.1177/026765839501100302
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839501100302 [Google Scholar]
  35. White, L., Bruhn-Garavito, J., Kawasaki, T., Pater, J., & Prévost, P.
    (1997) The researcher gave the subject a test about himself: Problems of ambiguity and preference in the investigation of reflexive binding. Language Learning, 47(1), 145–172. 10.1111/0023‑8333.41997004
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.41997004 [Google Scholar]
  36. Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G.
    (2016) The roles of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 147–161. 10.1017/S136672891400090X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891400090X [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error