CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study

GRANENA, GISELA·2016·Applied Psycholinguistics
DOI 10.1017/s0142716415000120
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent proposals on language aptitude have distinguished between cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning (e.g., Doughty et al., 2010; Linck et al., 2013). This methodological study extends recent work on aptitude by investigating whether aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning are differentially related to the two main information-processing cognitive styles proposed by dual-process theories in cognitive psychology: rational–analytical and experiential–intuitive (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). A relationship was found between a rational–analytical profile and explicit aptitude, as well as between an experiential–intuitive profile and implicit aptitude. Structural equation modeling further showed that the proposed model had acceptable fit. These results were interpreted as support for the qualitatively different types of cognitive processes underlying the two hypothesized types of aptitude.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0142716415000120

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • LLAMA D is a measure of implicit learning since it contains no explicit presentation and was distinct from other (more explicit) aptitude measures in a factor analytic study while nonetheless loading similarly to other implicit measures.

    “Granena (2013Granena ( , 2015) ) argues that LLAMA D is a measure of implicit learning since it contains no explicit presentation and was also distinct from other (more explicit) aptitude measures in a factor analytic study while nonetheless loading similarly to other implicit measures.”

    From Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (2017) · cites this paper as Granena 2015

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. 10.1111/lang.12010 · DOI
  2. Reber, 1993, Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972 · DOI
  4. Myers, 1998, Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers–Briggs type indicator
  5. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00626.x · DOI
  6. 10.1111/lang.12011 · DOI
  7. Lieberman, 2003, Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes, 44
  8. Kline, 2005, Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
  9. 10.1111/0023-8333.00137 · DOI
  10. 10.1177/0267658312461497 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Epstein, 2008, Intuition in judgment and decision making, 23
  12. Reed, 1994, Assessing implicit learning with indirect tests: Determining what is learned about sequence structure, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 585
  13. 10.1007/s00426-004-0208-3 · DOI
  14. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.001.0001 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.009 · DOI
  16. 10.1037/0882-7974.10.3.379 · DOI
  17. 10.1093/applin/amp059 · DOI
  18. Reber, 1991, Implicit and explicit learning: Individual differences and IQ, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 888
  19. Carroll, 1964, Language and thought
  20. Carroll, 1981, Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, 83
  21. 10.1016/j.intell.2007.09.004 · DOI
  22. Carroll, 1959, Modern Language Aptitude Test: Form A
  23. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00700.x · DOI
  24. Skehan, 1986, Experimental approaches to second language learning, 81
  25. DeKeyser, 2007, Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, 97
  26. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390 · DOI
  27. Skehan, 1998, A cognitive approach to learning language
  28. 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.003 · DOI
  29. 10.3758/BF03196171 · DOI
  30. 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1207/s15516709cog1601_2 · DOI
  32. Doughty, 2010, Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum, 10
  33. Meara, 2005, LLAMA language aptitude tests
  34. 10.1075/lllt.35.04gra · DOI
  35. 10.1037/13128-000 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.011 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1111/lang.12018 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02175.x · DOI · Paper page
  39. DeKeyser, 2011, Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 395
  40. Jiménez, 2002, Attention and implicit learning, 43
  41. Skehan, 1989, Individual differences in second language learning
  42. 10.1002/ajmg.b.20076 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1111/0023-8333.21997002 · DOI
  44. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch18 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1075/lllt.2.13rob · DOI
  46. Scovel, 2001, Learning new languages: A guide to second language acquisition
  47. 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x · DOI
  48. Sheen, 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, 301
  49. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3 · DOI
  50. 10.1017/S0140525X00003435 · DOI
  51. 10.1080/15475440701377477 · DOI
  52. Trofimovich, 2007, Conversational interaction in second language, 144
  53. 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12007.x · DOI
  55. 10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.39 · DOI
  56. 10.1207/S15326985EP3802_4 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.1037/0003-066X.52.7.700 · DOI
  58. 10.1093/applin/ams044 · DOI
  59. Pimsleur, 1966, Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB)
  60. Epstein, 1990, Handbook of personality theory and research, 165
  61. 10.1017/S0272263199001011 · DOI
  62. 10.1037/a0016615 · DOI
  63. Chapelle, 1995, Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom, 158
  64. Erlam, 2005, Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition, Language Teaching Research, 27, 464
  65. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1017/S0272263197002064 · DOI
  67. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(200003/04)14:2<157::AID-PER366>3.0.CO;2-L · DOI
  68. Hamrick, 2012, Statistical learning and language acquisition

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
GRANENA, G.
Venue
Applied Psycholinguistics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2015-04-08
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
577-600
ISSN
  • 0142-7164
  • 1469-1817
DOI
10.1017/s0142716415000120
Cited by
40
References
5
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)

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