CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice

Robinson, Peter·2007·Practice in a Second Language
DOI 10.1017/cbo9780511667275.015
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction: aptitude – the once and future concept This chapter is concerned with second language (L2) learning aptitude and the cognitive demands of practice in various instructional contexts. Specifically, it describes recent theories of and research into the structure of cognitive abilities that underlie aptitude. It also describes findings from recent empirical research into the extent to which these abilities are drawn on during practice in performing types of pedagogic tasks, in processing L2 input under conditions of practice that manipulate the focus of attention and intention and in uptake of focus on form delivered during practice on these tasks and under these conditions. Broadly conceived, aptitude for learning from opportunities for practice draws on more than cognitive abilities and involves affective and conative factors which may also be consistent determinants of an individual's engagement with the L2 (Ackerman, 2003; Dörnyei, 2002, 2005; MacIntyre, 2002; Robinson, 2005a; Snow & Farr, 1987). This said, this chapter addresses in detail only cognitive aspects of what Richard Snow (1994) called the cognitive-affective-conative triad of factors contributing to aptitude – focusing on these and their interaction with learning contexts. Task and situation specificity Aptitude, Snow argued, “should refer to being equipped to work at a particular kind of task or in a particular kind of situation” (Corno, Cronbach, Kupermintz, Lohman, Mandinach, Porteus, & Talbert, 2…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511667275.015

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Robinson's conception emphasizes dynamic interactions between learner ability factors and inherent task characteristics, with aptitude-treatment interactions taking place at all levels and influencing task performance and real-world performance.

    “Robinson's theoretical conception of FL aptitude differs from previous models with its most articulate emphasis on the DYNAMIC interactions between learner ability factors (either of lowerlevel core cognitive abilities or higher-level aptitude complexes) and the inherent task characteristics (or 'task complexity' in his own terms, Robinson 2005Robinson , 2007Robinson , 2012)).Such aptitude”

    From Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (2017) · cites this paper as Robinson 2007

  • The concept of FL aptitude has developed from being seen as a stable and unitary fixed trait (Carroll's time) to being considered as a more dynamic and multiple set of abilities which interact with other internal or external factors.

    “the concept of FL aptitude has developed from being seen as a stable and unitary fixed trait (Carroll's time) to being considered as a more dynamic and multiple set of abilities which interact with other internal or external factors”

    From Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (2017) · cites this paper as Robinson 2007

  • Robinson's Aptitude Complexes/Ability Differential framework incorporates two closely interlocking hypotheses: the Aptitude Complexes Hypothesis and the Ability Differentiation Hypothesis.

    “Robinson's (2005Robinson's ( , 2007Robinson's ( , 2012) ) 'Aptitude Complexes/Ability Differential' framework.As its name clearly denotes, there are two closely interlocking hypotheses incorporated in the framework.”

    From Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (2017) · cites this paper as Robinson 2007

  • Patterns of abilities need to be matched to learning tasks.

    “First, the proposal of a small number of aptitude complexes that differentially relate to learning outcomes under different processing conditions suggests that patterns of abilities need to be matched to learning tasks (Robinson, 2001”

    From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Robinson, 2007

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 100

  1. 10.1017/S0272263197002052 · DOI
  2. Cook, 1996, Second language learning and language teaching
  3. Graaff, 1997, Differential effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition
  4. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05417.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1007/978-1-4684-6416-0 · DOI
  6. 10.1017/S0272263100012365 · DOI
  7. Perruchet, 2002, The self-organizing consciousness, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 297, 10.1017/S0140525X02000067 · DOI
  8. Pimsleur, 1966, Pimsleur language aptitude battery (PLAB
  9. 10.1093/applin/25.3.340 · DOI
  10. Sasaki, 1996, Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence
  11. Anderson, 1993, Rules of the mind
  12. Skehan, 1998, A cognitive approach to language learning
  13. Reber, 1993, Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious
  14. 10.1017/S027226310001425X · DOI
  15. Jungheim, 1999, Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the 3rd Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Vol. 2
  16. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780 · DOI
  17. Foster-Cohen, 2005, Eurosla yearbook. Vol. 5
  18. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  19. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780 · DOI
  20. Niwa, 2000, Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence and aptitude
  21. Doughty, 1998, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
  22. 10.1111/0023-8333.21997002 · DOI
  23. Carroll, 1959, Modern Language Aptitude Test
  24. Snow, 1987, Aptitude, learning and instruction. Vol. 3: Conative and affective process analysis
  25. Robinson, 2004, Rules and similarity processes in Artificial Grammar and natural second language learning: What is the “default”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 33
  26. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  27. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  28. 10.1002/9780470756492 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/0023-8333.00160 · DOI
  30. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  31. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  32. 10.1111/0026-7902.00076 · DOI
  33. Doughty, 1998, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
  34. Fujimura, 1999, Proceedings of the 10th IUJ conference on second language research
  35. Snow, 1987, Aptitude, learning and instruction, Vol. 3: Conative and affective process analysis
  36. Dai, 2004, Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development, 10.4324/9781410610515 · DOI
  37. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524175.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Schmidt, 1995, Attention and awareness in foreign language learning
  39. Sternberg, 1984, Advances in the psychology of human intelligence
  40. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780 · DOI
  41. Robinson, 1999, Aptitude, task feedback and generalizability of focus on form: A classroom study
  42. 10.1017/S0272263100012870 · DOI
  43. Sternberg, 1994, Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence
  44. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780 · DOI
  45. 10.1017/S0272263197002015 · DOI
  46. 10.1017/S0267190505000036 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780 · DOI
  48. 10.1075/sibil.15 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Bygate, 2001, Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing
  50. 10.1017/S0272263197003045 · DOI
  51. 10.1002/9780470756492 · DOI
  52. Doughty, 1998, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
  53. Sternberg, 2000, Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential
  54. Fleishman, 1984, Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks
  55. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  56. Sternberg, 1994, Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence
  57. Corno, 2002, Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow
  58. 10.1075/lllt.11 · DOI
  59. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  60. 10.1017/S0272263199001011 · DOI
  61. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  62. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00964.x · DOI
  63. Dechert, 1989, Interlingual processing
  64. Robinson, 1996b, Consciousness, rules and instructed second language acquisition
  65. 10.1093/applin/22.1.27 · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  67. Robinson, 2003b, The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning, Second Language Studies, 21, 45
  68. Gass, 2000, Stimulated recall methodology in second language research
  69. 10.1017/S0272263105050126 · DOI
  70. Stanovitch, 1999, Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning, 10.4324/9781410603432 · DOI
  71. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780 · DOI
  72. Sternberg, 1985, Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence
  73. Anderson, 1992, Intelligence and development: A cognitive theory
  74. Schmidt, 1995c, Attention and awareness in foreign language learning
  75. 10.1111/1467-9922.00204 · DOI · Paper page
  76. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x · DOI · Paper page
  77. Robinson, 1996c, Task complexity and second language syllabus design: Data-based studies and speculations
  78. Cattell, 1971, Abilities: Their structure, growth and action
  79. García-Mayo, in press, Investigating tasks in formal language settings
  80. DeKeyser, 2000, The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499, 10.1017/S0272263100004022 · DOI · Paper page
  81. VanPatten, 2004, Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary, 10.4324/9781410610195 · DOI
  82. 10.1017/S0272263100014674 · DOI · Paper page
  83. 10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.218 · DOI
  84. 10.1207/S15326985EP3802_3 · DOI
  85. Krashen, 1982, Principles and practice in second language acquisition
  86. 10.1017/S0272263197002040 · DOI · Paper page
  87. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492 · DOI · Paper page
  88. Gilabert, 2004, Task complexity and L2 oral narrative production
  89. Ackerman, 2002, Ability and task constraint determinants of complex task performance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 194
  90. 10.1177/003368829502600204 · DOI
  91. 10.1075/lllt.2 · DOI
  92. 10.1177/026765830101700405 · DOI · Paper page
  93. 10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90008-2 · DOI
  94. 10.1017/S0272263100012857 · DOI
  95. Shavelson, 2002, A multidimensional approach to achievement validation: Special Issue, Educational Assessment, 8, 2
  96. 10.1515/iral.2003.012 · DOI
  97. 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 · DOI · Paper page
  98. Day, 1986, Talking to learn: Conversation in second language learning
  99. Cornwell, 2000, Individual differences in foreign language learning: Effects of aptitude, intelligence and motivation
  100. 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Robinson, P.
Venue
Practice in a Second Language
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2007-03-12
Pages
256-286
DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511667275.015
Cited by
69
References
8
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 1052 d)

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