An Investigation Into Second Language Aptitude for Advanced Chinese Language Learning

Author(s): PAULA WINKE

Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 97, No. 1 (Spring 2013), pp. 109-130
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23361741
Accessed: 01-05-2018 01:02 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wiley are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Investigation Into Second
Language Aptitude for Advanced
Chinese Language Learning
PAULA WINKE

Michigan State University

Second Language Studies Program
Department of Linguistics and Languages
B252 Wells Hall, 619 Red Cedar Road
East Lansing, MI 48824
Email: urinke@msu.edu

In this study I examine the construct of aptitude in learning Chinese as a second language (L2) to
an advanced level. I test 2 hypotheses: first, that L2 aptitude comprises 4 components—working
memory, rote memory, grammatical sensitivity, and phonemic coding ability—and second, that
L2 aptitude affects learning both directly and indirectly (mediated by strategy use and
motivation). Native speakers of English (n = 96) studying advanced Chinese took the Modern
Language Aptitude Test and a phonological working memory test and responded to motivation
and strategy use questionnaires. Using end-of-course listening, reading, and speaking proficiency
test results as measures of Chinese learning, I constructed a structural equation model to test the
hypotheses. The model fit the observed data. Of the 4 components foreseen to comprise L2
aptitude, rote memory contributed the most and working memory the least. Aptitude, strategy
use, and motivation had about the same impact on learning but varied in how well they predicted
the individual skills of listening, reading, and speaking. The results shed light on L2 aptitude in
the particular context of an advanced L2 Chinese course.

COGNITIVE PROCESSES AND AFFECTIVE a broader concept of L2 aptitude should be

accepted,
variables shape how individuals acquire one that recognizes the effects of
a foreign
or second language (L2) and predict how well they
mediating, cognitively oriented, and/or affective
are likely to learn one (Beckner et al., 2009; Ellis,vitally, strategy use and motiva
variables—most
2004; Robinson, 2002c; Skehan, 1989). tion. Third,
This studybecause L2 aptitude may be best
investigates the plausibility, via structural equation
understood in terms of the context of the language
modeling (SEM), of a model of language learning situation (Robinson, 2007), I detail the
learning
that includes cognitive (rote memory, phonemic
particular conditions of this study's L2 learning
coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, context:
and native-English-speaking
phono adults learning
logical working memory), cognitively oriented
Chinese in an intensive (6 to 8 hours a day in class),
(strategy use), and affective (motivation) 63-week course intended to bring them to an
variables
as learning predictors. It also examines how
advanced the
level of proficiency in Chinese. Finally, I
factors affect each other within the model. describe the use of SEM to investigate L2 learning
First, I review research that addresses what I aptitude in this context, which has been rarely
suggest is a narrow definition of L2 aptitude as a set used in L2 aptitude research.
of purely cognitive constructs. Second, I argue that
THE COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTS OF SECOND
LANGUAGE APTITUDE
The Modern Language Journal, 97, 1, (2013)
DOI: 10.1111/j. 1540-4781.2013.01428.x Acquiring proficiency in an L2 in an instructe
0026-7902/13/109-130 $1.50/0
setting is considered challenging for adult
©2013 The Modern Language Journal
(Doughty, 2004; Ellis, 2004, 2005). Understandin

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
110 The Modern. Language Journal 97 (2013)

why has engrossed L2 acquisition researchers for Pimsleur, 1966).3 But differing tests of L2 aptitude
decades. Since the 1950s, researchers have posited do not fundamentally alter our understanding of
that L2 aptitude is a construct separate from the underlying cognitive constructs of L2 aptitude
general intelligence and predicts adult, classroom (Skehan, 1998). Moreover, they do not extend the
based, L2 learning success (Carroll, 1962, 1981, construct of L2 aptitude beyond what the tests
1990; Corno et al., 2002; Dörnyei, 2005b; measure (Dörnyei, 2005b; Neufeld, 1979; Sâfâr &
Robinson, 2005a; Skehan, 2002). The variables Kormos, 2008).
that were first recognized as part of L2 aptitude It may profit the field to take aptitude research
were identified prior to and/or independent of to another level and investigate aptitude for
modern second language acquisition (SLA) theo dynamic complexity. For example, Skehan (2002)
ry. Carroll (1958), tasked with creating an L2 proposed that aptitude abilities are dynamic and
aptitude test for the U.S. government, adminis change over time. Robinson (2005a, 2007) sug
tered 34 cognitive tests to military personnel gested that different aptitude abilities are needed
taking intensive, 1-week-trial, beginner-level, Man at different stages of learning. Recent theorizing in
darin Chinese courses that focused on speaking SLA has proposed that learning is fundamentally
skills. By using exploratory factor analysis, Carroll a slave to the environment, with certain contexts
identified five tests that were both practical to nourishing some mental processes and other
administer and highly predictive of L2 learning contexts nourishing other mental processes (Beck
success. These tests now comprise the Modern ner et al., 2009; Dörneyi, 2009a; Larsen-Freeman
Language Aptitude Test, or MLAT, Form A & Cameron, 2008). It is not, therefore, an
(Carroll & Sapon, 1959b)} Three of the five tests' understatement to claim that aptitude as a
underlying constructs identified by Carroll standalone cognitive trait is problematic. One
(1958, 1962) will be explored here: rote memory place to start is to investigate aptitude constructs
for learning (the ability to store verbal information individually and within a larger picture of cogni
in memory and recall it later); phonetic coding tive, cognitively oriented, and affective variables
ability (the ability to analyze incoming sounds so and situated within a particular language learning
that they can be retained); and grammatical context. We can at least then begin to understand
sensitivity (the ability to recognize, in whatever if aptitude is dynamic and relates to the learning
manner, the function of a word in a sentence).2 context, as has been suggested (Neufeld, 1979;
(For a more detailed description of these con Snow, 1987; Sternberg, 2002; Sternberg &
structs, see Nagata, Aline, & Ellis, 1999, p. 135, Grigorenko, 2002).
and Skehan, 1998, p. 190.) Carroll followed this
research with several MLAT validation studies

(Carroll, 1962, 1963, 1966) and concluded that The MLAT

under intensive learning conditions with hetero
geneous groups of learners, the MLAT correlates Many researchers have challenged the view tha
fairly well with L2 achievement, with most L2 aptitude is something measured by the MLA
correlation coefficients between .40 and .65 (cf. (Dörnyei, 2005b; Robinson, 2002b, 2007; Sâfâr &
Carpenter, 2009; Skehan, 1998). Kormos, 2008; Skehan, 2002). One criticism is tha
Over the decades, the predictive validity of the the constructs underlying the MLAT do no
MLAT has prevailed. The MLAT is still used by represent a complete definition of L2 aptitud
the U.S. Foreign Service and the Canadian Foreign This has been confirmed by research that has
Service in selecting candidates for L2 study. The shown that the MLAT does not strongly predic
MLAT is also used in research that attempts to language learning when instruction is less intense
define the cognitive traits that explain differences (Carroll, 1962, 1990) or more communicative i
in adult L2 acquisition (e.g., research on critical nature (Robinson, 2007; Sâfâr & Kormos, 2008
period effects, DeKeyser, 2000; Harley & Hart, Furthermore, in the original validation studies by
1997, 2002; Ross, Yoshinaga, & Sasaki, 2002). Carroll, learners only received lower level instr
Other aptitude tests, based on the MLAT or shown tion. Thus, even though there have been decad
to be valid through correlations with the MLAT, of studies on L2 aptitude, we still do not know wha
have been developed (e.g., the Cognitive Ability cognitive variables are important for learning i
for Novelty in Acquisition of Language [Foreign] moderately intense courses, in communicative
Test or CANAL-FT, Grigorenko, Sternberg, & task-based language programs, or for achievin
Ehrman, 2000; the Defense Language Aptitude advanced L2 skills.
Battery or DLAB, Peterson & Al-Haik, 1976; the This does not mean that researchers should

Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery or PLAB; abandon the MLAT but rather that the

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Paula Winke 111

constellation of factors that contribute to success the "set of processes that hold a limited amount of
ful language acquisition needs to be expanded
information in a readily accessible state for use
in an active task" (Cowan, 2005, p. 39). In other
beyond the constructs represented by the MLAT
words, working memory is a cover term for
and more firmly situated within the context of
learning. Furthermore, aggregating L2 aptitude multiple processes, including short-term memory,
the real-time manipulation of linguistic material
test subscores into a single composite score (which
indirectly implies what L2 aptitude is—a single through effortful processing (Cowan, 2005) and
factor) needs to be revisited. Skehan (1998, 2002)storing information in long-term memory. These
called for researchers to view aptitude as truly are dissociable abilities, each with limited capaci
differentiated or multifaceted, meaning that one ties, but that must work together for learning
could have high ability in one aptitude construct (Baddeley, 2007; Miyake & Friedman, 1998).
and low ability in others, resulting in individuallyEmpirical investigation into working memory's
unique L2 aptitude profiles. This is different from
role in relation to previously identified L2 aptitude
Carroll's view that there are across-the-board haves constructs is of current interest in the field for

and have-nots in L2 aptitude or that L2 aptitude isboth practical and theoretical reasons. Several
"a special, inherent talent that not all individualsgovernment-sponsored research projects support
possess" (CASL, 2009, p. 1). Robinson (2007) such research with the goal to increase the
proposed the Ability Differentiation Hypothesis,government's ability to identify military and
which claims that some L2 learners have clearly foreign service candidates for language training
differentiated cognitive skills and abilities, while(see CASL, 2009; Kenyon & MacGregor, 2004).
others do not, and that these different talent Theoretically, researchers are interested because
schemes correspond with different aptitude comthey need to understand L2 aptitude as a construct
plexes, which must be matched to instructional and how it fits within other theories about learning
conditions to maximize L2 learning potential. (Corno et al., 2002). Thus far, research suggests
According to Skehan and Robinson, within the that working memory is an essential part of L2
model, the individual components may be corre aptitude (Robinson, 2002b; Sâfâr & Kormos,
lated for some learners, but not for others. 2008), but evidence is limited. Some research
suggests that it may only significantly differentiate
learning at lower levels of instruction (Hummel,
2009). Other research that focuses on the short
Working Memory
term memory component of working memory
In the 1990s, building on research in cognitivesuggests that limited short-term memory capacity
psychology that identified working memory as may impede learning for those with limited
a cognitive trait separate from long- and shortcapacities while failing to differentiate other
term memory systems4 and important for learninglearners (Carpenter, 2009). Such findings ques
(Baddeley, 1986, 1992, 2007; Cowan, 1995, 2005;tion the entire concept of L2 aptitude: That is, is
Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Hitch & Baddeley, there really a single latent trait that can reliably
1976), applied linguists investigated the relationpredict advanced-level language skills or L2 skills
ships between working memory and L2 acquisitionacquired through nonintense or more naturalistic
and ascertained that working memory is anconditions? Researchers may have pinned their
essential component for L2 learning (Gathercole hopes on working memory as a promising
& Baddeley, 1993; Harrington & Sawyer, 1990, additional component of L2 aptitude that reliably
1992; Miyake & Friedman, 1998; Miyake, Fried predicts advanced proficiency, but initial research
man, & Osaka, 1998; Service, 1992). Concomitantis inconclusive. More studies are needed.
ly, researchers suggested that working memory is
most likely an additional cognitive construct of L2 SECOND LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND
aptitude (Daneman & Merikle, 1996; HarringtonNONCOGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE
& Sawyer, 1992; McLaughlin, 1995; Miyake &VARIABLES
Friedman, 1998; Robinson, 1995, 2002b) and may
be the "the key to elaborating the concept of It is simplistic to think that language learning
language aptitude itself' (Sawyer & Ranta, 2001, depends solely on cognitive traits. Researchers
p. 340). have long attributed language learning success to a
Generally defined, working memory underlies the number of noncognitive factors, such as high
ability to process linguistic input and store motivation for learning the particular language
information from that input for later retrieval. at hand (Dörnyei, 1990; Gardner, 1990, 2001;
Specifically, working memory has been defined as Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner, Tremblay, &

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
112 The Modern Language Journal 91 (2013)

Masgoret, 1997; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; communicate in the target language (Dörnyei &
Oxford, 1996; Pimsleur, 1966; Schmidt, 1991; Kormos, 2000; Maclntyre et al., 2001; Yashima,
Skehan, 1989; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995) and 2002; Yashima et al., 2004). A highly motivated
the use of various language learning strategies language learner is further characterized by strong
(Cohen, 1998; Dörnyei, 2005b; Ehrman & and clear incentives for learning the language,
Oxford, 1990; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; O'Malley such as for future employment, a pay raise, travel
& Chamot, 1989; Oxford, 1990a, 1990b, 1994, opportunities, or to communicate with family
2001,2011; Schmitt, 1997; Skehan, 1989). Debated
members (these are classified as instrumental
in the L2 aptitude literature is whether these and/or intrinsic reasons; for definitions see
noncognitive variables should be considered as Gardner, 1985; Gardner, 2001; Gardner &
Maclntyre, 1991; Gardner et al., 1997; Tremblay
part of a broader construct of L2 aptitude. On one
hand, some propose that they should not: Apti& Gardner, 1995). The individual will also
tude is purely a static, cognitive trait resistant tohave higher confidence in his or her abilities in
change (Carroll, 1990; Parry & Child, 1990;using the L2 (Clément, Dörneyi, & Noels, 1994;
Pimsleur, 1966; Stansfield & Reed, 2004). On Dörnyei, 2003, 2005a; Ushida, 2005)—and corre
the other hand, some propose that L2 aptitude, spondingly lower anxiety in using the language
broadly defined, includes the noncognitive varia (Maclntyre et al., 2002; Matsuda & Gobel, 2004).
bles of motivation (Dörnyei, 1990; Gardner, 1990; The overall consensus is that high motivation may
Pimsleur, 1966) and strategy use (Ehrman, Leaver, make up for deficiencies in cognitive abilities
& Oxford, 2003; Ehrman & Oxford, 1990, 1995; (Dörnyei, 1990; Pimsleur, 1966; Schmidt, 1991;
Grigorenko et al., 2000; Oxford, 1990b, 2011; Sternberg, 2002), which suggests that the effects of
Vandergrift, 2003). Such a broader view of L2 cognitive abilities on L2 learning are mediated by
aptitude holds that the underlying cognitive motivation.
constructs interact with one's motivation for

learning the particular language at hand and the

way in which the language is taught and learned,
Strategy Use
which may, in part, explain why a person is better
able to learn an individual L2 over another L2 Similarly, strategy use has been shown to affect
(Sternberg, 2002).5 L2 acquisition, but it is unclear how. Strategies are
the "steps or actions taken by the learners to
improve the development of their language skills"
Motivation (Oxford & Cohen, 1992, p. 1) or "the L2 learner's
toolkit for active, conscious, purposeful, and
attentive learning" (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002,
Motivation affects L2 acquisition in multiple
ways. It is a necessary precondition for L2 More recently, strategies have been viewed
p. 372).
acquisition (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei,
as cognitively oriented—as summarized by Macaro
Csizér, & Németh, 2006; Edmondson, 2004; (2006), "strategies are the raw material of con
Noels et al., 2000), and it must be healthily
scious cognitive processing, and their effectiveness
sustained over time for acquisition to continue
or noneffectiveness derives from the way they
are used and combined in tasks and processes"
(Dörnyei, 2005b, 2009b; Hiromori, 2009). For over
three decades, motivation has been shown to (p. 325). Studies that have measured strategy use
be a predictor of L2 learning success (Csizér through questionnaires have shown that learners
& Dörnyei, 2005; Gardner, 1985; Gardner & who use many different kinds of strategies, and
Maclntyre, 1991; Noels, Clément, & Pelletier, use them often, have more success in instructed
1999; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; Tremblay & L2 acquisition settings (Cohen, 1998; Ehrman &
Gardner, 1995). These studies and others have Oxford, 1990; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths,
conceptualized motivation differently, but most 2003; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990a,
view it from a social-psychological perspective. 1994). (See Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995, for a
In other words, a highly motivated L2 learner will full review.) Other research has found that less
(a) want to integrate with speakers of the language successful learners use various, random strategies,
(integrativeness is the desire to become a while more successful learners are more systematic
passable member of the community of speakers about their strategy usage and use specific ones for
of the L2) (Gardner, 1985, 2001; Gardner et al., specific tasks (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995). More
1997), (b) have a very good attitude about learning recent research has suggested that strategy use
the L2 (Dörnyei, 1990, 2003; Yashima, Zenuk changes over time depending on L2 proficiency
Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004), and (c) be eager to and the learning context (Macaro, 2006), with

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Paula Winke 113

advanced L2 learners using fewer strategiesProficiency—a 3 on the Interagency Language

overall than intermediate learners (Hong-NamRoundtable scale; see http://www.govtilr.org for
& Leavell, 2006) because at the advanced levels a description) in the skills of listening, reading,
of proficiency, learners' processes for L2 acquisi and speaking so that the learners could go on to be
tion are more automatized, resulting in a smaller interpreters, analysts, and interrogators for the
range of strategies needed for acquisition (see military branches for which they worked. All
Oxford, 2011, for a comprehensive review of the students received instruction from the same
research). teachers, used the same materials, and follow
Most interestingly, research has shown that L2 the same curriculum.

learning strategies and motivation are related Equal instructional conditions across partici
(Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001). More strategy use pants is important because prior research has
equals more or better learning, and more motivat found that L2 aptitude is sensitive to exposure
ed learners use more learning strategies more conditions, such as the amount of implicit versus
often (Gardner et al., 1997; Maclntyre & Noels, explicit instruction (Robinson, 1997, 2002c,
1996). Thus, a full model of L2 learning that 2005b). Prior studies on aptitude may have had
considers the impact of L2 aptitude on learning significant sampling errors in relation to instruc
should also investigate the combined mediating tional variance. For example, Hummel (2009)
role of motivation and strategy use. As far as I explored the relationships among the cognitive
know, no study thus far has done so. constructs of L2 aptitude (phonetic coding ability,
grammatical sensitivity, rote memory, and phono
THE SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING logical working memory) and L2 proficiency. She
CONTEXT found that the cognitive constructs of L2 aptitude
combined predicted 29% of the variance in L2
(English) proficiency. The 77 participants in her
One of the problems with L2 aptitude research
study
is that it often assumes that L2 aptitude exists in were
a recruited from a first-year Teaching
vacuum and is independent from the L2 learning
English as a Second Language degree program. L2
context. This may not be true, especiallyproficiency
if we was measured directly after entrance
assume motivation and strategy use mediate
(within their first month of study) in the program;
aptitude's effects on language learning.
theOne
tests of L2 aptitude, including working
might be more motivated to learn a certain L2 were administered at some point after
memory,
over another (Sternberg, 2002); likewise, the one
proficiency test (Hummel did not indicate
might be more motivated to learn an L2 in aAlthough Hummel described the partic
when).
certain classroom situation over another. This ipants as being a homogeneous group—all were
corresponds with what is known as the resultative native French speakers with at least 7 years of
or spiraling effect of motivation: LearnersEnglish who study—the quality and methods of their
do well in a certain learning situation become prior English language instruction were not
even more motivated to learn, while those who controlled. One could imagine a situation in
do poorly get discouraged and try less hard which those who attended better language pro
(Hermann, 1980). Classroom-based variables grams received better instruction on strategy use
such as materials, instructional techniques, teach(which has been shown to improve L2 learning—
ers, and peers might affect motivation and strategysee Plonsky, 2011) and were more motivated,
use, which may positively impact learning, miniwhich might have contributed to the relationships
mizing or distorting the effects of L2 aptitude. Asobserved. Furthermore, if the participants at
stated by Corno et al. (2002), "to understand the
tended differentially performing schools, with
effects of person characteristics on performance,school access determined through a college
one must specify the performance situation" entrance exam (another cognitive test or an
(p. 216). Thus, researchers must investigate L2intelligence test), any observed correlations be
aptitude in terms of the context of the L2 learningtween L2 aptitude and proficiency could be
situation (Robinson, 2007). interpreted as noncausal: Other factors (i.e.,
This current study is unique in that all learnersgeneral intelligence, instructional differences)
stemmed from the same learning context. Themay underlie both high aptitude and high
learners began with no prior Chinese languageperformance. This is not a fatal research design
instruction. All received the same instruction
flaw, but it allows one to question the reliability of
throughout a 63-week course, which was intended
such a study. It would be better to make certain
to develop in each language learner advanced
that all learners received the same instruction
(and the same amount of instruction), which
level proficiency (also known as General Professional

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
114 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

would help ensure that only the variables present dependent variables. In structural equation modelin
in the hypothesized model of L2 learning were the analysis requires a theoretical model that can
responsible for the study's outcomes. tested against the available data. It can be determin
whether this model is consistent with the data and also

how good a fit it is. (p. 981)

USING STRUCTURAL EQUATION A model that is found to be consistent with the data
MODELING TO INVESTIGATE SECOND
LANGUAGE APTITUDE
through SEM has nothing to say about whether a
better model might be possible with the existing
set of data or with other data. Thus, the results
The relationships among L2 aptitude constructs
have been explored through correlation stemming
analyses from SEM are grounded within the
(e.g., Wesche, Edwards, & Wells, 1982),context
factorof the data set (in this case, within the data
analyses (e.g., Carroll, 1958, 1962, 1963,provided
1966, by adults learning Chinese in a commu
1993), and simple and multiple regressionnicative, task-based, 63-week course that focuses
(e.g.,
Carpenter, 2009; Hummel, 2009). However, these of listening, reading, and speaking).
on the skills
But, with SEM, competing models can be com
are essentially descriptive techniques, making
pared, a model can be tested over time, or a model
complete hypothesis testing difficult (Byrne,
can be tested across different data sets. This is
2009). For example, with confirmatory factor
exactly what L2 aptitude research needs, especially
analysis (CFA), even though the researcher
postulates how the underlying latent variablesbecause theory now suggests that cognitive abilities
may be
relate and then tests this structure statistically, CFArepresented differently by different
focuses on whether and the extent to which the individuals, may change over time, or may depend
observed variables are linked to the underlying on the particular dynamics of the first language
(Ll)-L2 learning context. SEM also allows struc
latent traits. The strengths of the regression paths
(the factor loadings) from the latent variablestural
to relations to be plotted in a picture, making it
the observed variables (the items) are the focus easy
of to visualize the theory being studied
CFA. CFA does not consider direct effects among (Byrne, 2009). While other studies on L2 aptitude
have employed SEM (i.e., Sasaki, 1993,1996) ,6 this
the factors, and thus CFA misses essential elements
a full latent variable model (such as SEM) has.is the first L2 aptitude study using SEM that
SEM combines a CFA measurement model (SEM ensures participants received the same amount
runs a CFA as part of its analysis) and a structural type of instruction.
and
model. In other words, a full SEM model allows
researchers to estimate both the links between HYPOTHESIZED MODEL

the latent variables and their observed measures

This study's hypothesized model is presente
(the measurement portion of the model) and the
Figure 1. What I hypothesize is a model o
direct effects among the variables (the structural
learning that includes both cognitive and aff
portion of the model).
traits. L2 aptitude is defined as comprisin
With SEM researchers can investigate the
cognitive traits of rote memory, phonetic c
plausibility of a full latent variable model, which
ability, grammatical sensitivity, and working
is defined as a single proposed set of relationships
ory. L2 aptitude affects L2 learning both dir
among one or more independent variables and
and indirectly—the indirect effects coming
one or more dependent variables (Byrne, 2009).
mediation by the affective traits of strategy u
The relationships within the proposed model can
motivation.
be discussed in terms of their causality, but the
cause-effect relationships must be backed up by
METHOD
relevant theory—that is, the proposed set of
relationships in a model of L2 aptitude Participants
and L2
learning must stem from hypotheses and theories
Ninety-six
on L2 aptitude and L2 learning. As explained by native English-speaking, adult learn
Lewis and Vladeanu (2006) : ers of Chinese volunteered to be participants in
this study. All were students in a 63-week, intensive
Chinese program at the Defense Language Insti
While there are similarities between structural equa
tute (DLI)
tion modeling and multiple regression (e.g., they are
in Monterey, California. All partic
ipantsare
based on analysis of intercorrelations) there were U.S. military personnel. Sixty-six were
male,
fundamental differences. Multiple regression pro 30 were female. Ages ranged from 19 to 36,
vides simple definitive results about whichwith an average age of 25. As explained above, all
indepen
received
dent variables produce significant effects on whichthe same task-based, L2 instruction in

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Paula Winke 115

FIGURE 1

The Hypothesized Model

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Cognitive Cognitively Oriented / Affective

Chinese and received 6 to 8 hours of classroom implausible, ungrammatical and plausible, un

grammatical and implausible). The 48 sentences
based instruction 5 days a week during the 63-week
course.
were grouped into 12 sets: four sets each of three,
four, and five sentences, groupings similar to those
Materials used by Daneman and Carpenter (1980) and
Turner and Engle (1989). The test was self-paced;
Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT). The however, sentences within a set were controlled to
learners' phonetic coding ability, grammatical
play over the computer with 3-second intervals.
sensitivity, and rote memory were assessed by
While the participants listened to a set of sentences
sections one through five of the paper-and-pencil
(the sentences were only presented aurally with no
based MLAT (Carroll & Sapon, 1959a). Based on
visual support), they clicked a mouse to indicate
Carroll (1962, 1990) and Skehan's (1998, 2002)
whether the sentence was grammatical and
view of the underlying constructs of L2 aptitude
whether it was semantically plausible. After select
assessed by the MLAT, rote memory was measured
ing "enter" to submit the answers for a set, the
by sections one (number learning) and five
participants were prompted to type (on a new
(paired associates), phonetic coding ability by
screen) the last word of each sentence. All
sections two (phonetic script) and three (spelling sentence-final words were common (not abstract,
clues), and grammatical sensitivity by section four
because abstract words may be more difficult to
(words in sentences). The MLAT was obtained in
recall; Turner & Engle, 1989), noncompound,
2004 through the Language Learning and Testing
concrete nouns of one to three syllables in length.
Foundation (http://lltf.net). For information
No sentence-final word of a given set was
concerning the five sections and their specific
semantically associated with another word in
tasks, see Dörnyei (2005b) and the Language
that set, and no words within a set rhymed.
Learning and Testing Foundation's (2012) Web
site.
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL).
Phonological Working Memory Span Test. The Strategy use was measured through the Strategy
participants' working memory capacity was as Inventory for Language Learning, or SILL
sessed through an online, verbal working memory (Oxford, 1990a), which was administered online
span test adapted from Mackey et al. (2002), for this study. The SILL comprises 80 five
which was based on other span tests used in prior point, Likert-scale questions pertaining to (a)
research (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Turner & social, (b) metacognitive, (c) memory, (d) com
Engle, 1989; Waters & Caplan, 1996). The test pensation, (e) cognitive, and (f) affective strate
comprised 48 unrelated sentences, half being gies (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Oxford, 1990a). It has
grammatically correct and half semantically been used in numerous studies on language
plausible, which resulted in four sentence types learning strategies (e.g., Carson & Longhini,
(grammatical and plausible, grammatical and 2002; Engelbar & Theuerkauf, 1999; Green &

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
116 The Modern Language Journal 91 (2013)

Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003; Hong-Nam & ing procedures outlined in Conway et al. (2005). For
Leavella, 2006; Hwu, 2007; Nakatani, 2006; Oxford any given set of sentences, if processing scores fell
& Burry-Stock, 1995; Wharton, 2000) and meas below 80%, the data from that set were discarded. If
ures the number and type of strategies applied by processing scores were above 80%, then all
the learner at a specific point in the learning sentence-final words recalled correctly were award
process (Tseng & Schmitt, 2008). ed 1 point. Therefore, items with a higher memory
load contributed more to the overall phonological
Motivation Questionnaire. The motivation ques
working memory score. As summarized by Conway
tionnaire consisted of 38 five-point, Likert-scale
et al., "for load-weighted scoring procedures, PCL
questions adapted from Kormos and Dörnyei
represents the sum of correctly recalled elements
(2004). The questions, which tap into learners'
from all items, regardless of whether the items are
(a) integrativeness, (b) incentive values, (c)
perfectly recalled or not (also without respect to
attitudes toward learning the L2, (d) linguistic
serial order within items)" (p. 775).
self-confidence, (e) language use anxiety, (f) task Items on the SILL were combined into a
attitudes, and (g) willingness to communicate
composite SILL score to indicate what norma
(Dörnyei, 2002) have been used in multiple considered a latent variable. The same was done
research studies on motivation for learning an
with the items on the motivation questionnaire. I di
L2 (Dörnyei, 2002; Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; this to make the whole model easier for the com
Kormos & Dörnyei, 2004; Weger-Guntharp, 2008).
puter program Analysis of Moment Structures
The questions appear in Appendix A.
(AMOS) 18 (structural equation modeling software)
L2 Learning. L2 learning was measured to identify. For each learner (and for each measure),
through the Defense Language Proficiency Tests items pertaining to the same category were aver
(DLPTs) in listening, reading, and speaking. aged, and then all categories were averaged together
Robust descriptions of and sample items from so that each category would have equal weight in the
these secure, government tests can be found at the learner's final score. (The categories for each
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language measure are described above in the materials
Center (n.d.) Web site. These test scores can be section.) In both questionnaires, values of negativ
considered gain scores because all study partic items were reversed before the aggregation.
ipants began the 63-week Chinese course with no
Analysis. I applied SEM to evaluate the co
prior instruction in Chinese.
jectured causal relations among the variou
Procedure variables investigated in the study. First, a fu
model with both measurement and structural

Data collection took place at the DLI in components was designed in accordance with the
Monterey, California, during the learners' 42nd theories in L2 aptitude and L2 learning reviewed
week of instruction. All participants volunteered to earlier (see Figure 2). The measurement portion
participate in the research, which was conducted of the model hypothesizes cause indicators, rather
outside of normal class time. In computer labs on than the more common effect indicators (Bollen,
campus, participants took the following measures 1989, p. 65). Maximum likelihood estimated
with 15- to 20-minute breaks in between: the MLAT, procedures were used to analyze the variance/
the working memory span test, the motivation covariance matrix of the observed variables using
questionnaire, and the SILL. Data collection, AMOS 18. To assess the overall model fit, I used
with breaks, lasted approximately 2 1/2 hours. chi-square and a pair of fit indices advised in the
After 63 weeks of instruction, the participants SEM literature (Byrne, 2009; Kline, 2011; McDo
took the DLPTs in speaking, reading, and listening. nald & Ho, 2002): the comparative fit index (CFI)
The DLPT scores were forwarded to the author for and the root-mean-square error of approximation
use in the structural equation model. (RMSEA). A nonsignificant chi-square and a CFI
above .95 suggest model acceptance, and an
Scoring. The MLAT was scored conventionally,
RMSEA value below .05 indicates a good fit of
with each item on the test scored as right or wrong,
the model to the data (Hu & Bender, 1999).
and a right answer worth 1 point. Rote memory
was a composite of sections one and five. Phonetic
RESULTS
coding ability was a composite of sections two and
three. Grammatical sensitivity was measured by
Preliminary Data Analysis
section four.

The phonological working memory test was The means, standard deviations, and reliabilities
scored according to partial-credit load (PCL) scor (Cronbach's alpha) for the different measures are

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Paula Winke 117

FIGURE 2
Structural Equation Model with Parameter Estimates

Note. All values adjacent to arrows are standardized estimates. Single-headed arrows are direct
effects. Double-headed arrows are correlations, e = error variance.
* Standardized coefficient p < .05.
**Standardized coefficient p < .01.

p = .00) and phonological working memory

in Table 1. Reliabilities for the different measures

were mostly high or very high (Bachman & p = .04). Strategy use significantly corre
(r = .23,
Palmer, 2010), ranging from .72 to .91.lated
Thewith motivation (r= .40, p = .00). Reading
sample correlation matrix is presented in Appen
was significantly related to both listening (r = .59
dix B; the matrix allows readers to form an
p = .00) and speaking (r = .32, p = .00).
independent judgment of the relationships
among the observed variables and will aid in Model Results
the interpretation of the direct effects among
the variables in the structural portion of the The full structural equation model, with the
model. Rote memory was significantly correlated resulting standardized coefficients, appears in
with both grammatical sensitivity (r — .45, Figure 2. It includes 1 latent variable (L2 aptitude,

TABLE 1

Measures and Descriptive Statistics

Measure Items Pts. M SD Rel.

Rote Memory 88 88 59 5.52 0.91

Phonetic Coding Ability 80 80 47 7.34 0.79

Grammatical Sensitivity 24 24 15 5.19 0.83

Phonological Working Memory 48 48 39 7.10 0.88

Strategy Use 80 400 240 15.20 0.72

Motivation 38 190 143 17.56 0.91

Reading 60 60 49 4.44 na

Listening 60 60 45 3.03 na

Speaking 1* 20 18 2.16 na

Nâle. Items = number of items on measure; Pts. = number of points possible; M =

Rel. = reliability coefficient Cronbach's alpha; na = not available; these tests are maint
Institute and reliability for the sample was not available.
The speaking test is an oral proficiency interview (OPI) and is scored holistically. W
obtained a 10 (2+ on the Interagency Language Roundtable [ILR] scale) or a 20 (a

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
118 The Modem Language Journal 97 (2013)

represented with an oval) and 9 observed variables discuss the (nonsignificant) effects of motivation
(the measures in Table 1, represented with on L2 learning. I then discuss two additional
rectangles). To examine the predictors of L2 nonsignificant but interesting results concerning
learning, the proposed model was fitted to the data the variables that contribute to aptitude: the small
with listening, reading, and speaking test scores as effect that working memory had on aptitude and
dependent variables. The model was accepted the negative effect that grammatical sensitivity had
and fit the data very well, \2(12, N = 96) = 7.6, on aptitude. To conclude, I discuss the model's
p = .815, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, RMSEA con overall represented construct of L2 aptitude and
fidence interval = .00, .07. its effect on learning.
In Figure 2, the model's direct effects are shown
as single-headed arrows and correlations are
The Effects of Strategy Use on L2 Learning
shown as double-headed ones. Also shown are
standardized coefficients. Within this model, only
The model showed only one statistically signifi
one direct effect was significant at the .05 cant
level:
effect: Strategy use inversely affected success
the effect of strategy use on reading (r= in reading (r= —.25, p = .03). In other words,
—.25,
p = .03). Low strategy use significandy predicted
when a learner's SILL average rose by 1 standard
higher L2 reading ability. Strategy use did not
deviation, his or her reading score fell by .25
standard deviations. (The absolute value of the
significantly predict listening or speaking ability.
Learners' L2 aptitude and motivation failed to
standardized regression coefficient r represents
how much the independent variable affects the
predict significandy greater success in listening,
reading, or speaking ability. dependent variable or latent trait: A positive sign
The model estimated the total variance ex represents a direct relationship, and a negative
plained in strategy use, motivation, listening,
sign represents an inverse relationship.)
reading, and speaking (the squared multipleAlthough this inverse relationship might initially
correlations provided in the AMOS output).
seem surprising, it is consistent with past research.
Ehrman and Oxford (1995) reported that less
Aptitude explained 9% of strategy use's variance
and 7% of motivation's variance. (In other successful
words, learners randomly use various strate
the error variance of strategy use is approximately
gies, while more successful learners systematically
91% of the variance of strategy use itself, useand
specific strategies for specific tasks. This
the error variance of motivation is approximately
replicates aspects of a curvilinear pattern commonly
93%.) The predictors (strategy use, aptitude, andby L2 strategy researchers using the SILL:
found
motivation) explained 2% of listening's variance,
Advanced learners use fewer strategies than inter
3% of speaking's, and 6% of reading's. mediate learners, advanced learners use a subset
of their former strategies, and advanced learners
DISCUSSION use their select strategies in new, creative ways that
relate to the complexities of advanced language
learningto
This study used structural equation modeling (Green & Oxford, 1995; Hong-Nam &
Leavell, 2006; Leaver, 2005; Oxford, 2011).8
investigate the accuracy of a current understand
ing of L2 aptitude within the context of Chinese
Research focused on reading skills has also shown
language acquisition. The model, diagrammed the importance of using an effective subset of
in Figure 2, included four cognitive aspects strategies
of L2 (Kember & Gow, 1994). Reliance on a
aptitude (rote memory, phonetic coding fewability,
select strategies demonstrates automaticity in
grammatical sensitivity, and working memory) learning, which is necessary in upper level classes
and two noncognitive variables (motivation and
(Alyousef, 2005). So in a study examining reading
strategy use). Within this model, L2 aptitude waslevel class, it is actually not surprising
in an upper
predicted to affect L2 learning direcdy. It that
wasthe also
students who used fewer strategies were
hypothesized that L2 aptitude would indirectiy more successful at learning to read.
affect L2 learning, that its effects would be relationship between strategy use
The inverse
mediated by motivation and strategy and use.success
The in reading makes particular sense in
model was found to be plausible (the data the context of Chinese language acquisition. The
displayed a very good fit to the model), which data showed that the students who use fewer
allows me to discuss the individual effects the strategies tend to be those with higher aptitud
factors have on one another within the model. I (aptitude inversely affects strategy use at r = —.30
first discuss the significant effect of strategy usepon
— .58). Aptitude is largely comprised of rot
reading. After explaining why I examine other
memory (r = .97, p = .59). And rote memory i
critical
effects even though they were not significant, I to learning to read Chinese (Everson &

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Paula Winke 119

aptitude misleadingly small. The explanatory

Ke, 1997; Hayden, 2005; Shen, 2004; Xiao, 2002).
So the students who used fewer strategies may havepower—the true significance—of that part of the
been more successful at reading in part becausevariation in aptitude is, in effect, divided up among
they were the ones with better memories. They the correlated variables. It is also interesting
may not have needed to venture into otherbecause grammatical sensitivity has been shown
strategies because their rote-memory-based strateto predict instructed language learning and also
gies worked particularly well. the implicit memorization of rule-based language,
Interestingly, strategy use had a much smaller but not incidental language learning (see
effect on listening (r = —.11, p = .35) and almostRobinson, 2007, p. 263). Thus, perhaps the results
no effect on speaking (r= .02, p = .85). These indicate that these advanced Chinese language
results lend empirical support to existing theory learners learned a considerable amount inciden

about strategy use. Researchers have speculated tally, learning that did not depend on grammatical
sensitivity. Similarly, strategy use was correlated
that strategies matter less for listening and speak
ing than for reading (Chamot, 2005; Farrell &with motivation (r = .40, p = .00), reducing the
Mallard, 2006) because in listening and speakingsignificance of their independent effects, as well.
the importance of social and interactive skillsFor these reasons, significance testing should not
overwhelms the effect of strategy use (Nakatani & be overemphasized in the interpretation of the
Goh, 2007); reading, of course, does not requiremodel presented in Figure 2.
social interaction. Most empirical L2 strategy
research has investigated the effect of strategies
The Effects of Motivation on L2 Learning
only on the skill of reading (Plonsky, 2011). Thus,
this study provides evidence that strategy use may
As with strategy use, the data on motivation are
affect the various skills differently.
largely consistent with prior theory and empirical
research. The data showed that aptitude negatively
affected motivation (r= —.27, p = .58), which
Nonsignificant Effects squares with Dörnyei's (2005b) view that the less
aptitude a learner has, the more motivation the
Most of the effects in the model were not
learner needs. Motivation was positively correlated
statistically significant. Although nonsignificant
with strategy use (r= .40, p = .00), as found by
results are usually ignored, there are three reasons
Vandergrift (2005). The data showed that motiva
they are worth considering in this study.tion First,
positively affects reading (r= .16, p = .17),
some statisticians contend that nonsignificant which is consistent with the theory that motivation
effects can be important (Valentine & Cooper, is important to learning an L2 (Dörnyei, 2001a,
2003). They point out that statistical significance
2005b; Ellis, 1994). (An effect size of .16 could be
tells us little about the "practical significance or
viewed as large within the context of advanced
relative impact of the effect size, and should not be
language learning.) While motivation ebbs and
used as a standalone measure of how much the
flows (Dörnyei, 2005b, 2009b), these data suggest
intervention 'matters'" (Valentine & Cooper, p. 1,
that motivation has some enduring power even at
emphasis in original). Second, significance thetesting
advanced level. One final point: Motivation
has been criticized as an arbitrary means of
had less of an effect on listening and speaking than
interpreting continuous data (Oswald & Plonsky,
on reading, just as strategy use did. As discussed
2010; Plonsky, 2011; Plonsky & Gass, 2011; above, the reason for the different effect of moti
Schmidt, 1996). The data in this model are
vation on the different skills may be that gains in
continuous rather than dichotomous.
listening and speaking are more strongly influ
Finally, it makes sense to consider some of the
enced by socially construed interlocutor effects,
nonsignificant effects in this study becausediminishing
the the relative impact of motivation.
correlations among some of the independent
variables (known as multicollinearity) may have
artificially reduced the significance of the effects.
The Components of L2 Aptitude
In this model, for example, rote memory was
One of the most important features of the
correlated with grammatical sensitivity (r= .45,
p = .00) and phonological working memory
model in Figure 2 is how it represents the construct
(r = .23, p = .04). These correlated independent
of L2 aptitude. L2 aptitude is composed of four
variables may be explaining the same partsindependent
of variables: rote memory, phonetic
coding, grammatical sensitivity, and working
the variation in aptitude (Thayer, 1991), making
the significance of their independent effectsmemory.
on The regression coefficient (V) of each

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
120 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

reveals how much the score for aptitude is system of grammar. One could view those with
expected to increase when the score for the high scores on grammatical sensitivity as those fo
independent variable increases by 1 standard whom the LI system is firmly entrenched. That i
deviation, holding all other independent variables their perceptions of grammar may be tuned by th
constant (Field, 2009; Thayer, 1991). In this LI to the extent that "their learned attention

model, aptitude for advanced-level Chinese con blocks them from perceiving differences in the
sists of high rote memory, phonetic coding, and (Beckner et al., 2009, p. 10), which may,
working memory abilities, and low grammatical this case, inhibit them, to some extent, from
sensitivity. Rote memory and grammatical sensitiv advanced Chinese language acquisition, or at least
ity contribute the most to differences in aptitude. delay it. This finding is congruent with other
Increases in rote memory scores lead to major research that has found that learners entrenched

increases in aptitude scores (r = .97,p = .59), and in their LI patterns may have negative L1-L2
increases in grammatical sensitivity lead to major crosslinguistic influence, which might manifest
drops in aptitude scores (r=— .86, p = .58). itself during L2 acquisition by an overgeneraliza
Increases in phonetic coding ability scores lead tion of rules, avoidance of certain forms or
to much smaller increases in aptitude scores structures, overproduction, and hypercorrection
(r = .14, p = .86), and increases in phonological (Beckner et al., 2009; MacWhinney, 1997;
working memory make almost no difference to Odlin, 1989). Aptitude test score interpretations
aptitude scores (r = .03, p = .92). as currently applied have not done well in
predicting Chinese learning (Carroll, 1962,
Working Memory and, L2 Aptitude. It may seem
1990, 1993). This study could be indicating why:
difficult to reconcile the results regarding working
According to this model, not all of the aptitude
memory and L2 learning when other studies have
components are positively oriented for success in
found working memory to be a significant
Chinese development.
predictor of L2 learning success (e.g., Harrington
Such information may have implications for
& Sawyer, 1992; Mackey et al., 2010; Mackey et al.,
pedagogy. Chinese instruction for native English
2002; Palladino & Cornoldi, 2004; Payne & Ross,
speakers could focus more on non-Ll-like, Chi
2005; Segalowitz & Lightbown, 1999; Tokowicz,
nese conceptual patterns and ways of thinking
Michael, & Kroll, 2004). However, as explained by
that are different from English, in particular,
Thayer (1991), "a variable might be the most
explicit instruction on L2 speech and writing
important single predictor of a dependent variable
patterns in Chinese that have been shown to
when used alone but an unimportant predictor
be extremely difficult for nonnative speakers of
when used in combination with other predictors
English to acquire because they do not conform to
due to the amount of shared predicted variance"
any rules or sequential patterns present in English
(p. 3). In this dataset, working memory correlates
(Li, 2009, 2010). It has been proposed that
with rote memory (r = .23, p = .04), which might
profiling aptitudes could help match learners to
account for working memory's diminished role in
instructional options and pedagogical tasks that
defining the construct of L2 aptitude for Chinese.
would improve comprehension and production
In any case, these results substantiate those from
(Robinson, 2002a, 2002c). This study does so on a
Hummel (2009), who found that working memory
group level. The profile of aptitude for advanced
is not good at differentiating learning at upper
level Chinese reveals the great importance of rote
levels of instruction. Unique in this study's dataset
memory and the necessity for openness to novel
is a potential reason why: There are other L2
forms and ways of thinking about language and
aptitude factors that account for some variance in
grammar.
advanced L2 Chinese learning—the primary one
being rote memory.

Grammatical Sensitivity and L2 Aptitude. A The Overall Effects of L2 Aptitude on

principal puzzle to solve is why, in this model, L2 Chinese Learning
grammatical sensitivity inversely contributes to the
construct of aptitude. When grammatical sensitiv To finalize, as can be seen in Figure 2, no single
ity (the ability to recognize the function of an component explains the observed variance in
English word in a sentence) goes down by 1 advanced L2 Chinese development. Within this
standard deviation, aptitude goes up by .86 model, aptitude, strategy use, and motivation have
standard deviations. It could be that students relatively the same impact on learning, as has been
who understand English grammar wellsuggested
have by previous research (Dörnyei, 2001b;
Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; Tseng & Schmitt,
difficulty adapting to the very different Chinese

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Paula Winke 121

2008; Vandergrift, 2005). While strategy use and (2008) were right—the language learning envi
motivation mediate the effects of aptitude and ronment is responsible for much of the learning
have an influence on reading ability, they affect that takes place. Different aptitude abilities
listening and speaking less. Aptitude, on the are best suited to different stages of learning
other hand, appears to directly affect speaking (Robinson, 2005a, 2007), and aptitude is not so
the most and does not directly affect reading or important at the later stages of learning. Perhaps
listening much at all. These seemingly discordant it is not that aptitude abilities are dynamic (as
findings make intuitive sense when considering asserted by Skehan, 2002); rather, it might be that
that language learning is a complex system aptitude interacts with a changing learning
affected by the interaction between the language environment (Neufeld, 1979; Snow, 1987; Stern
learner and the language learning environment berg, 2002; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002), thus
(Dörnyei, 2009a; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, bringing about flux (and a gradual reduction) in
2008). At the advanced stages of L2 learning, that the importance of aptitude for learning. In sum,
interaction has had more time to exert its at the advanced level, it is not the cognitive or
influence and creates unaccounted-for noise in affective variables—the factors that lie within

the model. Within a dynamic systems viewtheof learner

L2 (Ellis, 2004)—that matter; rather, it
learning, high aptitude, high motivation,isand
how the individual reacts to the learning
context. The learner's actions in the social
good strategy use may be significantly advanta
geous conditions for attaining advanced profi
environment, the amount of time spent ou
ciency, but when instruction is task-based
ofand
class learning, and other personal reacti
grounded in social interaction, minute distinc
and choices of what to focus on ultimately af
tions in advanced proficiency may dependlearning.
more
on unmeasureable and unsystematic factors exter
nal to the model.

The predictor variables (aptitude, strategy use,

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
and motivation) only explain 2%, 3%, and 6% of
the variance in listening, speaking, and reading, An important limitation to this study is the t
respectively. These results may be disappointing at which the motivation and strategy surveys
administered. Researchers have described how
for those looking for ways to predict which adults
will successfully learn a foreign language to an motivation changes over time for any given learne
advanced level of proficiency, but they are notand have described how a flux in motivation may
surprising. Carroll (1962) found that after native
be related to temporal components as small as a
English-speaking learners of Chinese progressed task in the language learning classroom or as larg
beyond the beginning level, significant associaas the flow of a foreign language course (Dörnyei,
tions between aptitude (as measured by the2003, 2005b; Dörnyei & Ottö, 1998). Likewise
MLAT) and learning became nonsignificant.strategies that are useful at the beginning of
Changes in Chinese L2 pedagogy since 1962 language learning may not be those that are usefu
have made the question of what predicts adat the upper levels of language learning (Griffiths
vanced-level, Chinese-language-learning success2003; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006); thus, strategy
worth asking again. Because working memory use, too, must naturally flux in response to the
has been shown to be related to L2 learninglearning conditions. The motivation and strategy
success, it was sensible to include working memorysurveys were administered during the learners'
as an additional component of L2 aptitude in such 42nd week of intense instruction, when most
an investigation. Likewise, I included measures learners were most likely at an intermediate level
of strategy use and motivation because recent of L2 Chinese. It could be that at this stage of such
theorizing suggests the effects of aptitude area lengthy process of highly controlled, classroom
mediated by them. Based on the results of thisbased learning, motivation is fairly well established
study, it does not appear that aptitude, updated asand generalized to a certain extent (Gardner
a construct that includes working memory and twoet al., 1997; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). Strategy
mediator variables (strategy use and motivation),use may reflect the learners' individual proficiency
is any better at explaining differences in advancedlevels at the time. The survey questions may have
L2 Chinese attainment. been replied to differently if administered to the
Why does L2 aptitude predict advanced-level L2 same learners at a different point in their learning
Chinese performance so poorly? What is it that trajectory; thus, the results concerning motivation
distinguishes performance at the advanced level? and
I strategies must be interpreted with the
speculate that Larsen-Freeman and Cameron
context in mind.

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
122 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

Another limitation is how I operationalized et al. (2005) and Waters and Caplan (1996). A
motivation and strategy use in this study. I created more variegated measure of working memory
composite scores for these latent traits to keep may tell researchers more about this construct in
the cases-per-parameter ratio low. According to relation to aptitude and the other variables in the
Kline (2011), the number of participants to the model, but adding such parameters requires more
number of free parameters should be 20 to 1 (yet participants.
10 to 1 is perhaps more realistic for applied Although there is substantial support for the
linguistics studies). By collapsing scores from final hypothesized model in this study in terms of
the surveys, I asserted that the traits are one goodness-of-fit indices, cross-validation SEM stud
dimensional. In reality, the motivation survey and ies are needed to investigate whether the model in
the SILL do not each measure a homogeneous this study holds with other samples and whether
construct. Each trait comprises several subareas: those model estimates are stable across samples.
motivation (as measured by the survey in this Ideally, such studies would include a larger sample
study; see Kormos & Dörnyei, 2004) has seven; size: In this study, with 15 degrees of freedom and
strategy use (as operationalized by the SILL, see 96 participants, the power to reject the model is
Oxford, 1990a) has five. In future research, not to less than .2 (see Table 2 in MacCallum, Browne,
violate the assumption of composite score homo & Sugawara, 1996). To achieve the statistically
geneity, researchers could focus on certain areas desired power of .8 (an 80% probability that the
of each latent trait. Or, to understand more test would not make a Type II error, that is, fail to
effectively the relationship between, for example, reject a null hypothesis when it is actually not
strategy use and the different advanced skill areas true), 500 learners would be needed (MacCallum
(in this case, advanced listening, speaking, and et al., 1996). Obtaining such participant numbers
reading), it would be useful to explore which is notably difficult, especially when investigating
questions best predict advanced-level success in advanced-level learners of a less-commonly-taught
the various skills. Currently, the items on the language such as Chinese. (For example, to obtain
motivation survey and the SILL are not balanced data from 500 participants for this study, I would
by language learning skill areas (i.e., the SILL has have to collect data from Chinese language
very few items that address strategies for speaking) learners at the DLI for 5 years in a row; my
and are not normally segregated into skill areas. 1 year of data collection yielded viable data from
Nor do probabilistic statistics exist that explain 96 participants at the cost of US$11,000 in
which motivational aspects/strategies are most National Science Foundation funding.) For this
likely used by learners at certain levels of pro reason, testing the model or similar models out on
ficiency. (Such research would be interesting and diverse datasets may be more feasible. This needs
useful.) Furthermore, the items are not stream to be done because we need to understand better
lined as to which are most relevant for learning how much variability is due to the learning
Chinese, a language proven difficult for English context, the level of acquisition, and the specific
language speakers because of its character-based L2 being learned. Future studies are also needed
writing system and use of tones. Thus, there is to explore the validity of using other kinds of
much groundwork to be done in terms of working memory tests and other (perhaps more
motivation and SILL instrument adaptation and finely tuned) measures of motivation, strategy use,
refinement.9 Such research needs to be conducted and L2 learning. Only then will we come closer to
to make data from the surveys more applicable to understanding the construct of L2 aptitude and
applied linguistics research using SEM. how it relates to the complex system of L2 learning.
In this study, the factor loading of working
memory to aptitude is very low, which is inconsis CONCLUSION
tent with the hypothesized model. This needs to
be revisited. I assessed working memory through Several varied factors must successfully conver
a single listening span test. It would be useful to for an adult learner to obtain advanced profici
administer different kinds of working memory cy in a foreign language. The learner nee
tests because working memory tests, like the excellent instruction, frequent opportunities f
various subtests of L2 aptitude, may tap into different kinds of output, and a heavy dose
different aspects of working memory. A more motivation. Access to cultural insights that expla
robust analysis of participants' working memory the pragmatics of the language has to come th
skills could include reading span tests, visual learner's way; effective language learning stra
spatial tests, and perhaps even a nonsense word gies need to be found; and, as any learner know
or digit span test, as recommended by Conway real, tangible rewards for learning efforts mu

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Paula Winke 123

materialize.
NOTES It is
concrete reason
not. But many i
1 Carroll envisioned a parallel "Form B" of the MLA
proficiency in
however, Form B was never created. Nonetheless, the
one individual
MLAT is still sold as "Form A." w
ciency, if his or
2 An additional factor, which Carroll identified as
regardless of
inductive language learning ability h
(the ability to decode
strengths, adva
linguistic material and conceptualize how other linguis
a few months
tic material would be encoded in the same language), ea
who was identified through
will tests that were acknowledged
succee
6 monthsby Carroll to be administratively
may difficult; therefore, b
this construct, which Carroll (1962) stated was important
the data in this s
for language learning, is not represented on the
construct
MLAT.
so ext
discrepancies in
3 The DLAB is currently being revised. Go to CASL's
The results of
Web page (http://www.casl.umd.edu/dlab2) thfor
tion that help
more information. For current information on the
involved in
PLAB and how it differs from the th MLAT, go
Chinese the Languageby Learning and adul
Testing Foundation
resultsWeb
providepages on the PLAB (http://lltf.net/aptitu e
as rote tests/language-aptitude-tests/pimsleur-langua
memory
matical aptitude-battery)
sensitiv and on L2 aptitude testing
memory,general (http://lltf.net/aptitude-tests/what-is-langu
is only
aptitude).
this context. Mo
4 Traditional theories of working memory suggest that
on advanced-lev
short-term memory works in combination with other
affective variabl
factors within working memory (Baddeley, 2007; Dane
In the 42nd week
man & Carpenter, 1980) and/or that information stored
program, L2
in long-term memory can be retrieved during working a
performance
memory executive processes (Cowan, 2005). For more no
information, see Dehn (2008).
motivation do. V
speaking is
5 A few researchers posit that on
L2 aptitude is malleable.
predictors See information on and debates concerning
in Feuerstein's th
might Instrumental Enrichment, one purpose of which
focus on is
to improve aptitude (Bailey & Pransky, 2010; Savell,
cal aspects of m
Twohig, & Rachford, 1986).
differential eff
6 Sasaki collected data from 160 Japanese students
strategy use
learning English in college in Japan. She used SEM to
ha
development; investigate the relationships among English proficiency, o
memory and the other L2 aptitude factors general intelligence, and L2 aptitude. But as in
observed in these data. Hummel's (2009) study, the quality and methods of
the college students' prior English language instruction
were not controlled.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
7 The measure was revised by increasing the number
of sentences from 36 to 48 (Winke, Stafford, & Adams,
I would like to thank the contributors to this research. 2003). The general procedures for this working memory
span test are also reported in Mackey et al. (2010).
The National Science Foundation funded this project
(Award #0418175). Jeff Connor-Linton, Alison Mackey,The measure can be downloaded from the Instruments

and Charles Stansfield formed my dissertation commitfor Research into Second Languages (IRIS) database at
tee at Georgetown University and guided this research.
http://www.iris-database.org
Gordon Jackson and John Lett at the Defense Language 81 am extremely grateful to an anonymous ML]
institute provided logistical support and helped me reviewer who recommended this part of the discussion.
solicit the Chinese-language-learner volunteers. Laura9 An anonymous ML] reviewer noted that one way
Klem (University of Michigan) and Alexander von Eye to measure the strategies of advanced language
(Michigan State) provided technical feedback on the
learners would be to interview them individually or
in focus groups. The reviewer noted that advanced
modeling. Comments from Helen Carpenter, Akiko Fujii
Kurata, Heather Weger, and four anonymous MLJ learners' needs may be more idiosyncratic than
what
reviewers assisted me in revising the paper, which I are measured by standardized surveys such as
believe made it stronger. Any mistakes, however, are
the SILL. Such information may help a researcher devise
solely mine. a skill- and language-specific Advanced Learners' SILL.

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

REFERENCES
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey
of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Alyousef, H. S. (2005). Teaching reading comprehension
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959a). Modem Language
to ESL learners. The Reading Matrix, 5, 143-154.Aptitude Test (MLAT) Manual, 2002 edition.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language
North Bethesda, MD: Second Language Testing,
assessment in practice, revised edition (2nd ed.).
Inc.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959b). Modem Language
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, AptitudeUK: Test, Form A, 2002 ed. (Operational Test).
Clarendon Press. North Bethesda, MD: Second Language Testing,
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, Inc.
556-559. Carson, J. G., & Longhini, A. (2002). Focusing on
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and learning styles and strategies: A diary study in an
action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. immersion setting. Language Learning, 52, 401
Bailey, F., & Pransky, K. (2010). Investigating the 438.
classroom discourse of mediation in a Feuerstein
CASL. (2009). Nearly native speakers: Tests predict
Instrumental Enrichment programme. Classroom who can best learn a foreign language. Retrieved
Discourse, 1, 121-141. March 15, 2010 from http://www.casl.umd.edu/
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H.,si tes/default/files/TT02105_FS_200912. pdf
Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., et al. (2009). Language is a
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy
complex adaptive system: Position paper. In N. C. instruction: Current issues and research. Annual

Ellis & D. Larsen-Freeman (Eds.), Language as aReview of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
complex adaptive system (pp. 1-26). Maiden,Clément,
MA: R., Dörneyi, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994).
Wiley-Blackwell. Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent
in the foreign language classroom. Language
variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Learning, 44, 417-448.
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with
Cohen,A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second
AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programminglanguage. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for th
Carpenter, H. (2009). A behavioral and electrophysio behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Law
logical investigation of different aptitudes for L2rence Erlbaum.
grammar in learners equated for proficiency Conway,
level. A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick,
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from DissertaD. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working
tion Abstracts International, A: The Humanities memory span tasks: A methodolgical review and
and Social Sciences, 69, 12 4602. (Accession No. user's guide. PsychonomicBulletin &f Review, 12,769
200920807). 786.
Carroll, J. B. (1958). A factor analysis of two foreign Corno, L., Cronback, L. J., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D.
language aptitude batteries. Journal of General F., Mandinach, E. B., Porteus, A. W., et al. (2002).
Psychology, 59, 3-19. Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of
Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
foreign language training. Pittsburgh, PA: Training Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory. New York:
Research and Education, University of Pittsburgh Oxford University Press.
Press.
Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. New York:
Carroll, J. B. (1963). Programmed self-instruction in Psychology Press.
Mandarin Chinese: Observations of student progress Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal strcuture of
with an automated audio-visual instructional device.
language learning motivation and its relationship
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. with language choice and learning effort. Modern
Carroll, J. B. (1966). A parametric study of language Language Journal, 89, 19-36.
training in the Peace Corps. Cambridge, MA: Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual
Laboratory for Research in Instruction, Graduate differences in working memory and reading.
School of Education, Harvard University Press. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19,
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on 450-466.
foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (Ed.),Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory
Individual differences and universals in language and language comprehension: A meta-analysis.
learning aptitude (pp. 83-118). Rowley, MA: New Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422-433.
bury House. Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center,
Carroll, J. B. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign (n.d.). DLPT guides. Available from http://www.
language aptitude: Then and now. In T. S. Parry dliflc.edu/dlptguides.html
& C. W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language Aptitude Dehn, M.J. (2008). Working memory and academic learning:
Reconsidered (pp. 11-29). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Assessment and intervention. Hoboken, NJ: John
Prentice Hall Regents. Wiley & Sons.

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Paula Winke 125

DeKeyser, R.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, (200
R. L. (1995). Cognition plus:
effects Correlates
in of language learning success. Modem
second
Second Language
Language Journal, 79, 67-89.
Dörnyei, Ellis, R. Z.
(1994). The study (1990).
of second language acquisition.
language Oxford: learning
Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Ellis, R.Z.(2004). Individual differences in second
(2001a)
classroom, language learning.Cambr
In A. Davies & C. Elder
Dörnyei, Z.
(Eds.), The handbook of applied(200
linguistics (pp. 525
second languag
551). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Review Ellis,
of R. (2005). Principles
Applied of instructed language
Dörnyei,learning.Z. (2002
System, 33, 209-224.
learning
Engelbar, S. M., &tasks.
Theuerkauf, B. (1999). Defining
context within vocabulary
differences and acquisition. Language in
157). Philadelphi
Teaching Research, 3, 57-69.
Dörnyei,Everson, M.,Z.
& Ke, C. (1997). An(2003
inquiry into the reading
tions in languag
strategies of intermediate and advanced learners of
research,
Chinese as a foreign and
language. Journal of the Chinese ap
Attitudes,
Language Teachers orienta
Association, 32, 1-20.
learning
Farrell, T. S. C.,(pp.
& Mallard, C. (2006). The use of3-3
reception
Dörnyei, Z.
strategies by (200
learners of French as a foreign
second language
language. Modern Language Journal, 90, 338-352.
the Internationa
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.).
tics (AILA), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Madi
Dörnyei,Gardner,
Z. R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second
(2005b).
Individual differen
language learning: The role of attitude and motivation.
London: Edward
Mahwah, NJ:Arnold. Law
Dörnyei,Gardner, R. C.Z.
(1990). Attitudes,(2009
motivation, and
of learner personality as predictors chara
of success in foreign
ment. In N.
language learning. In T. S. ParryC.
& C. W. StansfieldE
Language(Eds.), Language
as aptitude a
reconsidered
com(pp. 179-221 ).
Maiden, MA:
Englewood Joh
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Dörnyei, Z.
Gardner, R. C. (2009
(2001). Integrative motivation and second
In Z. Dörnyei
language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt&
language (Eds.),identity
Motivation and second language learning
UK- (pp. 1-20). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Multilingual
Dörnyei,Gardner,Z.,
R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational
Csizér
languagevariablesattitude
in second language acquisition. Canadian
Multilingual Matt
Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.
Gardner,
Dörnyei, R. C., & Maclntyre,
Z., & P. D. (1991).
Kor An
and social varia
instrumental motivation in language study: Who
Language says it isn'tTeachin
effective? Studies in Second Language
Dörnyei, Z.,
Acquisition, 13, 57-72. & Ot
process Gardner,
model R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A.-M.
of
Applied (1997). Towards a full model of second language
Linguistics
Doughty, C.J.
learning: (200
An empirical investigation. Modern Lan
second language
guage Journal, 81, 344-362.
research.
Gathercole, S. E., In
& Baddeley, A. D. B.
(1993). Working V
(Eds.), Form-mean memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
acquisition Erlbaum. (pp. 1
Erlbaum. Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at
Edmondson, W. (2004). Individual motivational profiles: learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender.
The interaction between external and internal TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning
factors. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprache
nunterricht, 9(2), 21. strategy use. System, 31, 367-383.
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A
Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. E.
brief overview of individual differences in second (2000). A theory-based approach to the measure
language learning. System, 31, 313-330. ment of foreign-language aptitude: The CANAL-F
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Adult language theory and test. Modem Language Journal, 84, 390
learning styles and strategies in an intensive 405.

training setting. Modem Language Journal, 74, Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and
311-327. second language proficiency in classroom learners

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Modem Language Journal 97(2013)

of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language trieved March 20, 2010 from http://zif.spz.
Acquisition, 19, 379-400. tu-darmstadt.de/jg-09-2/beitrag/kormos2.htm
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (2002). Age, aptitude, and second Language Learning and Testing Foundation. (2012).
language learning on a bilingual exchange. In P. MLAT sample items. Retrieved August 12, 2009
Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed from http://lltf.net/mlat-sample-items
language learning (pp. 301-330). Philadelphia/ Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1990). Working memory University Press.
in L2 reading: Does capacity predict performance? Leaver, B. L. (2005). Achieving success in second language
ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
ED320446. Press.

Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working

Lewis, M. B., & Vladeanu, M. (2006). What do we know
memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in about psycholinguistic effects? Quarterly Journal of
Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25-38. Experimental Psychology, 59,; 977-986.
Hayden, J. J. (2005). Why Johnny can read Chinese:
Li, X. (2009). Do they tell stories differently? Discourse
Working memory, cognitive processes, and reading marker use by Chinese native and nonnative
comprehension. Unpublished manuscript. speakers. Intercultural Communication Studies, 18,
Hermann, G. ( 1980). Attitudes and success in children's 150-170.
learning of English as a second language: The
Li, X. (2010). Sociolinguistic variation in the speech of
motivational vs. the resultative hypothesis. English learners of Chinese as a second language. Language
Language Teaching Journal, 34, 247-254. Learning, 60, 366-408.
Hiromori, T. (2009). A process model of L2 learners'
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and
motivation: From the perspectives of general for language use: Revising the theoretical frame
tendency and individual differences. System, 37, work. Modern Language Journal, 90, 320-337.
313-321. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M.
Hitch, G. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (1976). Verbal reasoning (1996). Power analysis and determination of
and working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experi sample size for covariance structure modeling.
mental Psychology, Sect. A—Human experimental Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
psychology, 28, 603-621. Maclntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S.
Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language (2001). Willingness to communicate, social sup
learning strategy use of ESL students in an inten port, and language-learning orientations of im
sive English learning context. System, 34, 399-415. mersion students. Studies in Second Language
Hsiao, T.-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories Acquisition, 23, 369-388.
of language learning strategies: A confirmatory Maclntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L.
factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86, 368 A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to
383. communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit L2 motivation among junior high school French
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven immersion students. Language Learning, 52, 537
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural 564.

Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Maclntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1996). Using social
Hummel, K. (2009). Aptitude, phonological memory, psychological variables to predicte the use of
and second language proficiency in nonnovice language learning strategies. Foreign Language
adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 225 Annals, 29, 373-386.
249. Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010).
Hwu, F. (2007). Learners' strategies with a grammar Exploring the relationship between modified
application: The influence of language ability and output and working memory capacity. Language
personality preferences. ReCALL, 19, 21-38. Learning, 60, 501-533.
Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). An examination of the
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi,
interactive model of ESL reading from the T. (2002). Individual differences in working
perspective approaches to studying. RELCJournal, memory, noticing of interactional feedback
25, 1-25. and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Kenyon, D. M., 8c MacGregor, D. (Eds.). (2004). Final report Individual differences and instructed language learning
of the Defense Language Aptitude Battery II Project. (pp. 181-210). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Benjamins.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structual MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acqusition
equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford and the Competition Model. In A. M. B. De Groot
Press. & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism:
Kormos, J., & Dörneyi, Z. (2004). The interaction of Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113-142). Mahwah,
linguistic and motivational variables in second NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
language task performance. Zeitschrift für interkul Masgoret, A.-M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes,
turellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 9(2), 1-19. Re motivation, and second language learning: A meta

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Paula Winke 127

analysis
Oxford,of studie
R. L. (1990a). Language learning strategies: What
associates. Languag
every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Matsuda,Oxford,
S., R. L. (1990b).&Styles, strategies,
Gobe and aptitude
of Connections for language learning. In T.
performance inS. Parry &
System, 32,C. W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsid
21-36.
McDonald,
ered (pp.R. P.,
67-125). Englewood &
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
practice Hall.
in reportin
Oxford, R. L. (1994). Language
Psychological learning strategies: An
Metho
update (ERIC DigestB.
McLaughlin, No. EDO-FL-02-95).
(199 Wash
ington, DC, Center
processing for Applied Linguistics: ERIC
perspec
387. Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Miyake,Oxford,A., &
R. L. (1996). New pathways of languageFr
learning
differences motivation. In R. L. Oxford in(Ed.), Languagese
Working learning motivation: Pathways to a new century.
memory
Healy & (pp. 1-8). Honolulu:
L. E. University
Bour of Hawai'i at
learning: Manoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum
Psycholin
retention Center. (pp. 339
Erlbaum. Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., & Osaka, M. (1998). Cue strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching
acquisition and syntactic comprehension in second English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.,
language learning: The role of working memory. pp. 359-366). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Unpublished manuscript, the findings of which Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language
are reported on by Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. in learning strategies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Long
A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne, Jr. (Eds.), Foreign man, Pearson ESL.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock,J. A. (1995). Assessing the
language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training
and retention (pp. 339-364). Mahwah; NJ: Lawrence use of language learning strategies worldwide with
Erlbaum. the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for
Nagata, H., Aline, D., & Ellis, R. (1999). Modified input, Language Learning (SILL). System, 23, 1-23.
language aptitude and the acquisition of wordOxford, R. L., Sc Cohen, A. D. (1992). Language learning
meanings. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classifica
language through interaction (pp. 133-149). Phila tion. Applied Language Learning, 3, 1-35.
delphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Palladino, P., & Cornoldi, C. (2004). Working memory
Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an oral communication performance of Italian students with foreign
strategy inventory. Modem Language Journal, 90, language learning difficulties. Learning and Indi
151-168. vidual Differences, 14, 137-151.
Nakatani, Y., & Goh, C. (2007). A review of oral Parry, T. S., & Child, J. R. (1990). Preliminary investiga
communication strategies: Focus on interactionist tion of the relationship between VORD, MLAT
and psycholinguistic perspectives. In A. D. Cohen and language proficiency. In T. S. Parry & C. W.
& E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered
(pp. 207-227). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (pp. 30-66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Neufeld, G. G. (1979). Towards a theory of language Regents.
learning ability. Language Learning, 29, 227-241. Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC,
Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). working memory, and L2 oral proficiency develop
Perception of teachers' communicative style and ment. Language Learning &f Technology, 9, 35-54.
students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Peterson, C., & Al-Haik, A. (1976). The development of
Language Journal, 83, 23-34. the Defense Language Aptitude Battery. Education
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R, & Vallerand, R. al and Psychological Measurement, 36, 369-380.
J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Pimsleur, P. (1966). Testing foreign language learning.
Motivational orientations and self-determination In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language teaching
theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85. (pp. 175-214). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Plonsky, L. (2011 ). The effectiveness of second language
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. New York: Cambridge
University Press. strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1989). Learning Learning, 61, 993-1038.
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research
strategies in second language acquisition. New York:
Cambridge University Press. methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning
interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325
strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: 366.
Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the "notic
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in
ing" hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the
second language research: Choices and challenges.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85—110.fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

adult second language learning. Language Learn Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and
ing, 47, 45-99. cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications
Robinson, P. (2002a, December). Aptitude complexes for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1,
for instructional contexts: Focus on form, 115-129.
pedagogic task, and learning condition. Paper
Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research
presented at the International Association of agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.
Applied Linguistics, Singapore. Schmidt, R., & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy
Robinson, P. (2002b). Effects of individual differences use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign
in intelligence, aptitude and working memory language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt
on adult incidental SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition
Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 313-359). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i
(pp. 211-266). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Press.

Benjamins. Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In

Robinson, P. (2002c). Learning conditions, aptitude N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:
complexes and SLA: A framework for research and Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199-227).
pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ences and instructed language learning (pp. 113-133). Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Psycholin
Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. guistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied
Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language Linguistics, 19, 43-63.
acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and
45-73. foreign-language learning. Quarterly Journal of
Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive abilities, chunk Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychol
strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial ogy, 45A, 21-50.
grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications Shen, H. (2004). Level of cognitive processing: Effects
of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and on character learning among non-native learners
Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance of Chinese as a foreign language. Language and
for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, Education, 18, 167-182.
235-268. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language
Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and learning. London: Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language
practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second
language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
cognitive psychology (pp. 256-286). New York: Cam Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In
bridge University Press. P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and in
Ross, S., Yoshinaga, N., & Sasaki, M. (2002). Aptitude structed language learning (pp. 69-93). Philadel
exposure interaction effects on Wh-movement phia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Snow, R. E. (1987). Aptitude complexes. In R. E. Snow
violation detection by pre- and post-critical period
Japanese bilinguals. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individ & M.J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruc
ual differences and instructed language learning tion (pp. 11-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
(pp. 267-300). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Erlbaum.

Benjamins. Stansfield, C. W., & Reed, D.J. (2004). The story behind
Sâfâr, A., & Kormos, J. (2008). Revisiting problems with the Modern Language Aptitude Test: An interview
foreign language aptitude. International Review of with John B. Carroll (1916-2003). Language
Applied Linguistics, 46, 113-136. Assessment Quarterly, 1, 43-56.
Sasaki, M. (1993). Relationships among second language Sternberg, R. J. (2002). The theory of successful
proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelli intelligence and its implications for language
gence: A structural equation modeling approach. aptitude testing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual
Language Learning, 43, 313-344. differences and instructed language learning (pp. 13
Sasaki, M. (1996). Second language proficiency, foreign 43). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
language aptitude, and intelligence: Quantitative and Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic
qualitative analyses. New York: Peter Lang. testing: The nature and measurement of learning
Savell, J. M., Twohig, P. T., & Rachford, D. L. (1986). potential Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Empirical status of Feuerstein's "Instrumental Thayer, J. D. (1991). Interpretation of standardized
Enrichment" (FIE) technique as a method of regression coefficients in multiple regression.
teaching thinking skills. Review of Educational ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
Research, 56, 381-409. ED334208.
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2004). The
differences, and instructional design. In P. Rob roles of study-abroad experience and working
inson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction memory capacity in the types of errors made
(pp. 319-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University during translation. Bilingualism: Language and
Press. Cognition, 7, 255-272.

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Paula Winke 129

Tremblay,
APPENDIX A
P. F., &
motivation const
Language Journal
Motivation Questionnaire
Tseng, W.-T., & S
This questionnairevocab
motivated is designed to gather info
tion mation about how you, as a student, feel
modeling ap abo
357-400. learning Chinese. Please read each statemen
Mark the response that tells how much you agre
Turner, M., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory
capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory andor disagree with each statement as follows:
Language, 28, 127-154. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 =
Ushida, E. (2005). The role of students' attitude
Somewhat agree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agre
and motivation in second language learning in Part A.
online language courses. CALICO Journal, 23,
49-78.
1. Sometimes I feel that language learning is a
Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2003). Effect size burden for me.
substantive interpretation guidelines: Issues in
2. I would like to get to know as many native
the interpretation of effect sizes. Retrieved July
1, 2010 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/
speakers of the language I am learning as
essig.pdf possible.
3. I am sure that I'll be able to learn the
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use:
Towards a model of the skilled L2 listener. language I am studying.
Language Learning, 53, 461-494. 4. I think I am good at learning languages.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation,
5. When I have to speak in my language class
orientations, metacognitive awareness and
proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, often
26, lose confidence.
70-89. 6. I like to work hard.
Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of
verbal working memory capacity and its relation to 7. Unfortunately, I am not too good at
reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experi learning the language I am studying.
mental Psychology, Sect. A—Human Experimental 8. I would rather spend time on subjects other
Psychology, 49A, 51-79. than the language I am learning.
Weger-Guntharp, H. D. (2008). The affective needs of 9. I am pleased with my current level of
limited proficiency heritage language learners: language ability in my language class.
Perspectives from a Chinese foreign language
10. I would like to spend a lot of energy learning
classroom. In K. Kondo-Brown & J. D. Brown
this language in the future.
(Eds.), Teaching Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
heritage students: Curriculum, needs materiah, and 11. I am not too interested in my language class.
assessment (pp. 211-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
12. Learning this language often causes me a
feeling of success.
Wesche, M., Edwards, H., & Wells, W. (1982). Foreign
language aptitude and intelligence. Applied Psycho 13. In my parents' view, the language class I am
linguistics, 3, 127-140. taking is not a very important course.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of 14. I would be pleased to be able to master an
bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. intermediate level of this language.
Language Learning, 50, 203-243. 15. I really like the language I am learning.
Winke, P., Stafford, C., Adams, R. (2003, March).
Assessing working memory capacity in SLA re 16. I generally feel uneasy when I have to speak
search. Paper presented at the American Associa the language I am learning.
tion of Applied Linguistics, Arlington, VA. 17. I generally feel uneasy when I have to read
Xiao, Y. (2002). The effects of character density on the language I am learning.
learning Chinese as a foreign language. Journal 18. I generally feel uneasy when I have to write
of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 37,
in the language I am learning.
71-83.
19. We learn things in the language class that
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a will be useful in the future.
second language: The Japanese EFL context.
Modern Language Journal, 86, 54-66.
20. Learning this language is one of the most
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). important activities for me.
The influence of attitudes and affect on 21. I rarely do more work for my language
course than what is absolutely necessary.
willingness to communicate and second language
communication. Language Learning, 54,
22. 119—
I would like to get to an advanced level in
152.
this language.

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

23. I don't mind it if I have to speak in this 3. ... in order to become more educated.

language with somebody.

4. ... because I would like to spend some time
24. I am satisfied with the work I do in my
in a country where this language is spoken.
language class.
5. ... so that I can read books, magazines and
25. I easily give up the hard-to-reach goals.
newspapers published in this language.
26. I like my language class. 6. ... because one cannot achieve any kind of
success without it.
27. I would like to get to know many people who
7. ... in order to get to know the life of people
come from countries where this language is
who speak this language better.
spoken. 8. ... because I would like to make friends with

Part B. speakers of this language.

9. ... in order to understand films, videos and
Learning this language is important to me...
TV programs in this language.
1. ... because I would like to get to know the 10. ... because it might be useful during my
culture and art of its speakers. travels.

2. ... because I may need it later for work or 11. ... in order to understand the lyrics of songs
further education. in this language.

APPENDIX B

Pearson Product Moment Correlations between All Observed (Indicator) Variables

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Rote Memory
2. Phonetic Coding Ability .12
3. Grammatical Sensitivity .45 ** .01
4. Phonological Working Memory .23 * .12 -.09
5. Strategy Use -.20 -.12 .10 -.13
6. Motivation -.20 -.07 .09 -.05 40 **
7. Listening .20 .09 .15 .01 .11 .02
8. Reading .12 .04 .13 -.04 .19 .07 .59 **
9. Speaking .08 -.04 -.12 .03 .06 -.10 .21 .32 **

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Tue, 01 May 2018 01:02:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms