Cited by 12

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sixty years of second language aptitude research: A systematic quantitative literature review

Chalmers, James, Eisenchlas, Susana A., Munro, Andrew, Schalley, Andrea C.·2021·Language and Linguistics Compass

Abstract

Second language (L2) aptitude has been broadly defined as the rate and ease of initially acquiring a second language. Historically, L2 aptitude has been understood as a stable trait that predetermined L2 achievement, regardless of individual learners’ efforts to acquire an L2. This traditional view of L2 aptitude as fixed and stable has led to it being a relatively neglected area of research within second language acquisition (SLA) studies. The little research that was in fact conducted was diagnostic in nature, and mostly used tests such as the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) to select potentially gifted L2 learners. Given that six decades have passed since the publication of the MLAT, now is a good time to revisit the literature and investigate whether L2 aptitude continues to be viewed as an individual difference of little interest to SLA research. While summative literature reviews of L2 aptitude research have been written, few systematic reviews exist. This article conducts a systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR) to provide a principled, comprehensive and reproducible synthesis of research into L2 aptitude published over the last 60 years (1959–2019). In this SQLR, close to one hundred journal articles and PhD dissertations were examined to discern generalisations and limitations in the field. This SQLR identifies a shift in the rationale for L2 aptitude testing, in which a diagnostic focus has been replaced by an explanatory perspective. Furthermore, our article points to a renewed interest in L2 aptitude research, which has come to be characterised by a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the concept and its components.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lnc3.12440

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Overview of the exclusion/inclusion process
FIGURE 1 Overview of the exclusion/inclusion processCC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 2 Top journals that published L2 aptitude research, 1959-2019
FIGURE 2 Top journals that published L2 aptitude research, 1959-2019CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 3 Number of publications on L2 aptitude between 1959 and 2019
FIGURE 3 Number of publications on L2 aptitude between 1959 and 2019CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 5 Trends in the use of L2 aptitude in the research, 1959-2019
FIGURE 5 Trends in the use of L2 aptitude in the research, 1959-2019CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 6
CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 6 Trends in the use of L2 aptitude test measures in L2 aptitude research, 1959-2019
FIGURE 6 Trends in the use of L2 aptitude test measures in L2 aptitude research, 1959-2019CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 7 Trends in the use of whole versus specific measures of L2 aptitude, 1959-2019
FIGURE 7 Trends in the use of whole versus specific measures of L2 aptitude, 1959-2019CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 8 Trends in the use of dependent variables in L2 aptitude research, 1959-2019
FIGURE 8 Trends in the use of dependent variables in L2 aptitude research, 1959-2019CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 9 Trends in the use of the top three independent variables in L2 aptitude research, 1959-2019
FIGURE 9 Trends in the use of the top three independent variables in L2 aptitude research, 1959-2019CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 11
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1017/S027226310808073X · DOI · Paper page
  2. Carroll J. B., 1962, Training research and education, 87
  3. Carroll J. B., 1981, Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, 83
  4. Carroll J. B., 1959, Modern language aptitude test
  5. 10.1111/lang.12341 · DOI
  6. Cummins J., 1975, Set, objectification and second language learning, Journal of Psychology, 10, 91
  7. Dąbrowska E., 2018, Experience, aptitude, and individual differences in linguistic attainment: A comparison of native and nonnative speakers, Language Learning, 69, 72
  8. 10.1177/003368827100200102 · DOI
  9. Dörnyei Z., 2010, The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition
  10. Doughty C. J., 2014, The companion to language assessment, 25
  11. 10.1111/lang.12322 · DOI
  12. 10.1017/S0267190521000076 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/lang.12018 · DOI
  14. 10.1093/applin/amu013 · DOI
  15. 10.1017/S0142716415000120 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1111/0026-7902.00076 · DOI
  17. 10.1093/applin/amu054 · DOI
  18. 10.1017/S027226311500042X · DOI
  19. 10.1075/aals.16.03li · DOI
  20. 10.4324/9781315122021-5 · DOI
  21. 10.1017/S0272263121000024 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1017/S0142716418000796 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/lang.12011 · DOI
  24. 10.4324/9781315617046 · DOI
  25. 10.1017/S0267190517000095 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/07294360.2013.841651 · DOI
  27. Pimsleur P., 1966, Pimsleur language aptitude battery
  28. Reardon S. F., 2014, Handbook of research in education, finance and policy, 491
  29. 10.1007/978-3-642-20850-8_4 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1075/eurosla.16.07rog · DOI
  31. 10.22599/jesla.24 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1111/lang.12244 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00625.x · DOI
  34. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00617.x · DOI
  35. 10.1177/0265532211434015 · DOI
  36. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.013 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.1.5 · DOI
  38. Skehan P., 1998, A cognitive approach to language learning
  39. 10.1075/lllt.2.06ske · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1111/lang.12025 · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00504.x · DOI
  42. 10.1177/026553229501200304 · DOI
  43. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12007.x · DOI
  44. 10.21832/9781783095735 · DOI
  45. 10.4324/9781315122021 · DOI
  46. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01428.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chalmers, J., Eisenchlas, S. A., Munro, A., & Schalley, A. C.
Affiliations
  • Library and Learning Services Torrens University Fortitude Valley Queensland Australia
  • School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science Griffith University Nathan Queensland Australia
  • Department of Language, Literature and Intercultural Studies Karlstad University Karlstad Sweden
Venue
Language and Linguistics Compass
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-11
Volume
15
Issue
11
ISSN
1749-818X
Cited by
12
References
3
Language
en

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