The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Aptitude and good language learners
Abstract
In her paper on the good language learner, Rubin (1975) identified aptitude, motivation, and opportunity as three factors that account for differential success in language learning. With respect to aptitude, she argued that aptitude tests predict success but do not provide sufficient information to guide pedagogical decision making. Instead, she advocated focusing on the strategies used by good language learners. The celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of Rubin's paper provides an excellent vantage point to view the latest developments in language aptitude research and to revisit the issue of how the concept of aptitude can inform pedagogy. What is aptitude? The concept of aptitude current at the time Rubin wrote her paper was that of John Carroll (1962, 1981) who saw foreign language aptitude as a stable cognitive characteristic of those individuals who have a knack or talent for learning other languages. It is defined in terms of speed in language learning. The most widely used measure of aptitude today is still the Modern Language Aptitude Test – MLAT (Carroll and Sapon, 1958) which was designed in the post World War II period to select learners who would be best able to profit from short intensive language courses. It has proved to be a consistent predictor of learning outcomes in a wide variety of contexts (for instance, Carroll, 1981; Gardner and Lambert, 1972). However, despite its predictive utility, the MLAT later came to be devalued by teaching practitioners be…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
L2 instruction may also be able to compensate for learners' weaknesses by providing dedicated support in the form of scaffolding and extra practice.
“However, it may also be able to compensate for learners' weaknesses by providing dedicated support in the form of scaffolding and extra practice (Ranta, 2008;Sawyer & Ranta, 2001;Skehan, 1998;Vatz et al., 2013).”
From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Ranta, 2008
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction
Roehr‐Brackin, K., Baranowska, K., Pavlekovic, R., & Scheffler, P. (2024) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12963 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Ranta, L.
- Venue
- Lessons from Good Language Learners
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2008-04-03
- Pages
- 142-156
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review