CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningCognitive Abilities and TestingSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 6 of the 75 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning

Open access
Pavlekovic, Renato, Roehr-Brackin, Karen·2024·Journal of the European Second Language Association
DOI 10.22599/jesla.117
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present study examined the structure of and relationship between aptitude for explicit and implicit learning and working memory. Furthermore, we investigated to what extent these variables could predict second-language (L2) proficiency in terms of reading, listening and grammar knowledge. A total of 86 Croatian learners of English at advanced levels completed the LLAMA aptitude test suite, a probabilistic serial reaction time (SRT) task, operation span and forward digit span tasks, as well as grammar, reading and listening comprehension tests. Our factor-analytic results support a conceptual distinction between (1) working memory, (2) explicit aptitude and (3) implicit aptitude, while at the same time highlighting the multi-componential nature of implicit aptitude, with factor loadings of LLAMA D and SRT pulling in opposite directions. Regression analyses mirror this pattern of results: Whereas components of explicit aptitude, implicit aptitude and working memory significantly predicted L2 proficiency, LLAMA D, SRT and forward digit span emerged as negative predictors. We argue that these findings support a conceptualization of (implicit) aptitude as a cognitive proclivity rather than as a context-independent ability, in line with both current research and previously proposed multi-dimensional and dynamic perspectives of aptitude.

Verified 2026-11-10 · 1 reference not checked yet

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study examined whether explicit aptitude, implicit aptitude, and working memory are separable constructs and how they predict L2 proficiency in advanced Croatian learners of English. It found three distinct factors, but the two hypothesized implicit aptitude measures loaded together while pulling in opposite directions, and several implicit/PWM measures were negative predictors of reading and grammar.

Key findings

  • Exploratory factor analysis yielded three components: explicit aptitude (LLAMA B/E/F; 28% variance), working memory (forward digit span and operation span; 19% variance), and implicit aptitude (SRT and LLAMA D; 16% variance), together explaining 63% of variance. LLAMA D and the SRT task loaded on the same implicit factor but in opposite directions and were not significantly correlated.
  • For L2 reading, the final regression model included LLAMA B and LLAMA E as positive predictors and the SRT task and LLAMA D as negative predictors, accounting for 30% of variance.
  • For L2 morphosyntactic knowledge (gap-fill), LLAMA F positively predicted and forward digit span negatively predicted scores, accounting for 19% of variance.
  • None of the aptitude or working memory measures predicted L2 listening. SRT mean RT was 447 ms (SD = 67) in the training condition and 457 ms (SD = 71) in the control condition; Cohen’s d across the last five blocks was 0.75.

Methods

  • Correlational design with 86 L1 Croatian learners of English in secondary education, aged 15–18 (M = 16.14, SD = 1.29), who had studied English for 6–13 years (M = 10, SD = 1.72); 83% were at CEFR C1 or C2.
  • Measures included the LLAMA aptitude suite, a probabilistic serial reaction time (SRT) task, operation span (EWM), forward digit span (PWM), a 75-item gap-fill grammar test, and the Oxford Placement test for reading and listening.
  • Analyses used reliability indices, Shapiro-Wilk tests, Spearman correlations, exploratory principal component analysis with direct oblimin rotation, and hierarchical multiple regressions for reading and gap-fill, with alpha set at .05.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: only a limited number of exclusively cognitive variables were measured; a larger sample would have been desirable to test the speculative claim that grammar and reading mediated listening acquisition.
  • Stated in the paper: the advanced proficiency of the sample means results may not generalize to learners at lower levels.
  • Evident from the text: the correlational design cannot establish causal direction, and the LLAMA D instructions were more explicit than some prior versions, while LLAMA D and the SRT task differ in modality, stimulus domain, and process-versus-product focus, complicating interpretation of their shared factor.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22599/jesla.117

Cites

53 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

6 of 75 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Iizuka and DeKeyser found that only the 'just listen' instructions resulted in a relationship between LLAMA D and the SRT task.

    “The researchers found that only the 'just listen' instructions that asked participants to carefully listen to the stimuli resulted in a relationship between LLAMA D and the SRT task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Iizuka and DeKeyser (2023) source
  • Premisecitation

    LLAMA D is an accuracy measure that assesses learning offline.

    “By contrast, LLAMA D is an accuracy measure which assesses learning offline (Christiansen, 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Christiansen, 2019 source

      Our copy discusses reflection-based tests administered after training in §1.1 and a 2AFC task in §3.1, but neither passage identifies LLAMA D or describes how it is scored. Searches for “LLAMA D” and “offline accuracy measure” found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Sensory modality can constrain higher-level cognition, including learning and memory.

    “Research in cognitive psychology has shown that sensory modality can constrain higher-level cognition, including learning and memory (Conway et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Conway et al., 2009 source
  • Interpretationreasoning

    Implicit aptitude may be a multicomponential construct.

    “In other words, implicit aptitude may be a multicomponential construct (Godfroid & Kim, 2021;Granena, 2020;Li & DeKeyser, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Godfroid & Kim, 2021 source
    • cites Granena, 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Li & DeKeyser, 2021 source
    • Rests on an assumption: The SRT task is visual in nature, whereas LLAMA D is an auditory task.
    • Rests on an assumption: The SRT task and LLAMA D differ in stimulus domain, with the SRT relying on non-verbal and LLAMA D on verbal stimuli.
  • Findingown data

    LLAMA D, SRT and forward digit span emerged as negative predictors of L2 proficiency.

    “LLAMA D, SRT and forward digit span emerged as negative predictors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 43
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    Iizuka and DeKeyser (2023) reported that when participants were instructed to 'just listen' to the sound sequences in LLAMA D, LLAMA D and SRT scores were negatively correlated.

    “A recent study (Iizuka & DeKeyser, 2023) investigating the effect of different types of LLAMA D instructions reported a similar finding when participants were instructed to 'just listen' to the sound sequences in LLAMA D.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Iizuka & DeKeyser, 2023 source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Implicit aptitude is multi-componential, with factor loadings of LLAMA D and SRT pulling in opposite directions.

    “while at the same time highlighting the multi-componential nature of implicit aptitude, with factor loadings of LLAMA D and SRT pulling in opposite directions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Participants scored highest on LLAMA B (M = 57.18, SD = 22.34) and lowest on LLAMA D (M = 37.57, SD = 23.10).

    “Participants scored highest on LLAMA B (M = 57.18,SD = 22.34) and lowest on LLAMA D (M = 37.57, SD = 23.10).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The final regression model for the gap-fill test includes two predictor variables (LLAMA F and forward digit span) and explains 19% of the variance in gap-fill scores.

    “Table 2 shows the final model for the gap-fill test which includes two predictor variables explaining 19% of the variance in gap-fill scores: LLAMA F and forward digit span (FDS).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    There was no significant association between SRT and LLAMA D, indicating divergence.

    “The results show no significant association between SRT and LLAMA D, thus indicating divergence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The factor loading for the SRT task is positive, while the loading for LLAMA D is negative.

    “Furthermore, the factor loading for the SRT task is positive, while the loading for LLAMA D is negative.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    LLAMA B and LLAMA E positively predict scores in reading.

    “Importantly, LLAMA B and E positively predict scores in reading, while the SRT task and LLAMA D are negative predictors.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.3. PREDICTORS OF L2 PROFICIENCY AT ADVANCED LEVELS · plain
      “Moreover, LLAMA B and E positively predicted L2 reading, while the SRT task and LLAMA D were negative predictors, with a total of 30% of the variance explained.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    LLAMA D and the SRT task loaded on the same factor and separately from measures of explicit aptitude and working memory.

    “LLAMA D and the SRT task as hypothesized measures of implicit aptitude loaded on the same factor and separately from measures of explicit aptitude and WM.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    In terms of the Common European Framework of Reference, 1% of participants were at level B1, 16% at B2, 45% at C1 and 38% at C2.

    “In terms of the Common European Framework of Reference for language proficiency, 1% of participants were at level B1 ('Threshold'), 16% at B2 ('Vantage'), 45% at C1 ('Effective operational proficiency') and 38% at the highest possible level C2 ('Mastery').”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Cohen's d across the last 5 blocks was 0.75, a medium effect size substantially higher than the effect sizes reported in previous research (0.19 in Kaufman et al., 2010 and 0.21 in Suzuki and DeKeyser, 2015).

    “Cohen's d across the last 5 blocks was 0.75, suggesting a medium effect size that is substantially higher than the effect sizes reported in previous research: 0.19 in Kaufman et al. (2010) and 0.21 reported in Suzuki and DeKeyser (2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kaufman et al. (2010) source
    • cites Suzuki and DeKeyser (2015) source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Articles posed the greatest challenge (M = 61.85, SD = 10.35), while the passive voice was easiest for participants (M = 88.68, SD = 13.27).

    “With regard to the targeted morphosyntactic structures, articles posed the greatest challenge (M = 61.85,SD = 10.35), while the passive voice was easiest for participants (M = 88.68,SD = 13.27).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Data were not normally distributed, with a negative skew suggesting a tendency for participants to score at the higher end of the spectrum.

    “Data were not normally distributed, with a negative skew suggesting a tendency for participants to score at the higher end of the spectrum.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The final regression model for reading includes four predictor variables (LLAMA B, LLAMA E, SRT, and LLAMA D) and accounts for 30% of the variance in reading scores.

    “The final model for reading as shown in Table 1 includes four predictor variables, LLAMA B, LLAMA E, SRT and LLAMA D, which accounted for 30% of the variance in reading scores.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    A small effect size was detected in blocks 4 and 5, and a medium effect size in blocks 2, 6, and 8.

    “A small effect size was detected in blocks 4 and 5, and a medium effect size in blocks 2, 6, and 8.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    LLAMA B and E, as well as LLAMA E and F, are significantly correlated at a moderate level.

    “LLAMA B and E, as well as LLAMA E and F, are significantly correlated at a moderate level of strength”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Scores on the Oxford Placement test were not normally distributed, with a negative skew indicative of generally high scores.

    “Scores on the Oxford Placement test were likewise not normally distributed, again due to a negative skew indicative of generally high scores.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    L2 listening was correlated with both L2 reading and L2 morphosyntactic knowledge.

    “As L2 listening was correlated with both L2 reading and L2 morphosyntactic knowledge”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The two working memory measures load on factor 2 (l = 1.31), which explains 19% of the variance.

    “The two WM measures load on factor 2 (l = 1.31), which explains 19% of the variance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The SRT task and LLAMA D loaded on the same factor and distinct from other measures of explicit aptitude (factor 1) and working memory (factor 2).

    “The SRT task and LLAMA D, the two hypothesized measures of implicit aptitude, loaded on the same factor and distinct from other measures of explicit aptitude (factor 1) and WM (factor 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Both explicit and implicit abilities predicted L2 morphosyntactic knowledge and L2 reading comprehension.

    “Overall, both explicit and implicit abilities predicted L2 morphosyntactic knowledge and L2 reading comprehension, in line with previously reported findings (Li, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Li, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The SRT task and LLAMA D are negative predictors of reading scores.

    “Importantly, LLAMA B and E positively predict scores in reading, while the SRT task and LLAMA D are negative predictors.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.3. PREDICTORS OF L2 PROFICIENCY AT ADVANCED LEVELS · plain
      “Moreover, LLAMA B and E positively predicted L2 reading, while the SRT task and LLAMA D were negative predictors, with a total of 30% of the variance explained.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The mean response time for the training condition across all blocks was 447 ms (SD = 67); the mean response time for the control condition was 457 ms (SD = 71).

    “The mean RT for the training condition across all blocks was 447ms (SD = 67); the mean RT for the control condition was 457ms (SD = 71).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The three factors explain 63% of the variance and highlight distinct loading patterns of aptitude measures compared to those assessing working memory.

    “Taken together, the three factors explain 63% of the variance and highlight the distinct loading patterns of aptitude measures compared to those assessing WM.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Exploratory factor analysis using principal component analysis with direct oblimin rotation yielded three components with eigenvalues above 1.

    “The analysis yielded three components with eigenvalues above 1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The two working memory measures are positively and significantly associated.

    “The two WM measures are likewise positively and significantly associated”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisenone given

    LLAMA B, E and F are regarded as measures of explicit aptitude.

    “While LLAMA B, E and F are regarded as measures of explicit aptitude”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Two hypothesized measures of implicit aptitude, the SRT task and LLAMA D, have been found to significantly predict grades achieved in foreign-language classes, speech fluency, and pronunciation accuracy at intermediate to advanced L2 levels.

    “Indeed, two hypothesized measures of implicit aptitude, the serial reaction time (SRT) task and LLAMA D (further discussed below), have been found to significantly predict grades achieved in foreign-language classes (Kaufman et al., 2010), speech fluency (Granena, 2019), and pronunciation accuracy (Saito et al., 2019) at intermediate to advanced L2 levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kaufman et al., 2010 source
    • cites Granena, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Saito et al., 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    LLAMA D correlated with phonological working memory, long-term memory retrieval as measured via a semantic priming task, and LLAMA B, while being uncorrelated with the SRT task.

    “On the other hand, it did correlate with PWM, long-term memory retrieval as measured via a semantic priming task, and LLAMA B, while at the same time being uncorrelated with the SRT task (Granena, 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Granena, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    It has been suggested that LLAMA D may be a measure of implicit aptitude.

    “it has been suggested that LLAMA D may be a measure of implicit aptitude (Granena, 2013a(Granena, , 2016))”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Granena, 2013a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Granena, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If participants are informed that they will be tested on the items they hear in the exposure phase, attempts at intentional and therefore explicit learning could ensue.

    “Specifically, if participants are informed that they will be tested on the items they hear in the exposure phase, attempts at intentional and therefore explicit learning could ensue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The first author monitored participants via Zoom to ensure adherence to protocol and allow clarification questions.

    “The first author monitored participants via Zoom to ensure adherence to protocol and allow participants to ask clarification questions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Linck et al. reported a positive influence of phonological working memory on long-term listening and reading attainment in advanced learners.

    “Linck et al. (2013) reported a positive influence of PWM on long-term listening and reading attainment in a group of advanced learners”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Linck et al., 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation

    LLAMA D potentially probes implicit memory ability in the verbal domain and the SRT task domain-general implicit learning ability.

    “with LLAMA D potentially probing implicit memory ability in the verbal domain and the SRT task domain-general implicit learning ability (Granena, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Granena, 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    The status of LLAMA D and the SRT task as measures of implicit aptitude is unresolved.

    “First, the status of LLAMA D and the SRT task as measures of implicit aptitude is still unresolved”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    No study to date has included measures of explicit and implicit aptitude and working memory in combination with an assessment of several components of L2 proficiency.

    “yet no study to date has included measures of all these variables in combination with an assessment of several components of L2 proficiency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Language-analytic ability strongly predicts L2 grammar learning and reading comprehension.

    “In particular, language-analytic ability strongly predicts L2 grammar learning and reading comprehension”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Li, 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Research to date has reported convergent validity between the SRT task and LLAMA D with measures of implicit knowledge and divergent validity with measures of explicit knowledge.

    “Research to date has reported convergent validity between the SRT task and LLAMA D with measures of implicit knowledge and divergent validity with measures of explicit knowledge (Granena & Yilmaz, 2019;Yilmaz & Granena, 2019)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Granena & Yilmaz, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yilmaz & Granena, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given

    The role of working memory remains unclear, both in relation to measures of explicit and implicit aptitude and in relation to the relative importance of phonological and executive working memory at different L2 proficiency levels.

    “Second, the role of WM remains unclear, both in relation to measures of explicit and implicit aptitude and in relation to the relative importance of PWM and EWM at different L2 proficiency levels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    LLAMA D has been found to be uncorrelated with other LLAMA sub-tests.

    “On the one hand, LLAMA D has been found to be uncorrelated with other LLAMA sub-tests (Saito et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Saito et al., 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Other studies with experienced advanced learners found no effect of phonological working memory on vocabulary and grammar knowledge and no association between executive working memory and knowledge of a high-difficulty grammatical structure.

    “whereas other studies with experienced learners at advanced levels found no effect of PWM on vocabulary and grammar knowledge (Linck & Weiss, 2011) and no association between EWM and knowledge of a grammatical structure of high learning difficulty (Roehr-Brackin et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Linck & Weiss, 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Roehr-Brackin et al., 2021 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Completion of the L2 reading and listening tests was not monitored because these tests relied on a commercial testing program.

    “Completion of the L2 reading and listening tests was not monitored because these tests relied on a commercial testing program, as detailed below.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    The probabilistic SRT task is a proposed measure of implicit aptitude that seems to be accepted more widely.

    “Another proposed measure of implicit aptitude that seems to be accepted more widely is the probabilistic SRT task (Kaufman et al., 2010)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kaufman et al., 2010 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    The probabilistic SRT task was administered to gauge aptitude for domain-general implicit sequence learning.

    “The probabilistic SRT task was administered to gauge aptitude for domain-general implicit sequence learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    No study to date has brought together measures of aptitude for explicit learning and implicit learning and phonological and executive working memory in a single research design.

    “No study to date has brought together all of the above strands by including measures of aptitude for explicit learning and implicit learning and phonological and executive WM in a single research design”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductown data

    LLAMA D yielded a lower but still acceptable reliability coefficient (α = 0.72).

    “LLAMA D yielded a lower but still acceptable coefficient (α = 0.72).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Results from more advanced participants as reported here may not be generalizable to learners at lower levels of proficiency, and vice versa.

    “Therefore, it is crucial to bear in mind that results from more advanced participants as reported here may not be generalizable to learners at lower levels of proficiency, and vice versa.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    All subsequent analyses used scores based on response time differences from blocks 4 to 8.

    “all subsequent analyses used scores based on the RT differences from blocks 4 to 8.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductown data

    Operation span task internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.73) and comparable to previous studies (0.78 in Unsworth et al., 2005 and 0.69 in Suzuki and DeKeyser, 2015).

    “Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.73) and comparable to the reliability indices reported in previous studies: 0.78 in Unsworth et al. (2005) and 0.69 in Suzuki and DeKeyser (2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Unsworth et al. (2005) source
    • cites Suzuki and DeKeyser (2015) source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductown data

    Split-half reliability with Spearman-Brown correction was 0.42 for all eight blocks and 0.44 for blocks 4-8.

    “Split-half reliability with Spearman-Brown correction resulted in a coefficient of 0.42 for all eight blocks and 0.44 for blocks 4-8.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Error responses (9% of the data) were discarded.

    “First, error responses (9% of the data) were discarded.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    The SRT task is a reaction-time measure that gauges the process of on-task learning and is a processing-based measure.

    “The SRT task is an RT measure that gauges the process of on-task learning (i.e., it is a processing-based measure, Christiansen, 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Christiansen, 2019 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    A limited number of exclusively cognitive variables was measured.

    “In particular, a limited number of exclusively cognitive variables was measured.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductown data

    LLAMA E (α = 0.97) and LLAMA F (α = 0.95) showed excellent reliability; LLAMA B showed very good reliability (α = 0.81).

    “LLAMA E (α = 0.97) and LLAMA F (α = 0.95) showed excellent reliability; LLAMA B also showed very good reliability (α = 0.81).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Significant outliers (1% of the data) were discarded, reducing the sample size to 83.

    “Significant outliers (1% of the data), defined as values of more than three SDs from the mean RT for each participant in each block (Granena, 2016;Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015), were likewise discarded, reducing the sample size to 83.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Granena, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015 source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductown data

    The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.55 and Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant.

    “(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of 0.55 and Bartlett's test of sphericity significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductown data

    The operation span task required the exclusion of three participants who did not meet the 85% accuracy criterion on the mathematical equations.

    “The OSPAN required the exclusion of three participants who did not meet the 85% accuracy criterion on the mathematical equations that preceded the letter memorization and recall component.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Openness and intuition are associated with success on the SRT task.

    “Along similar lines, Kaufman et al. (2010) have suggested that, among other factors, openness and intuition are associated with success on the SRT task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kaufman et al., 2010 source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Implicit learning may occur via diverse pathways, and therefore abilities tested by implicit aptitude measures may not necessarily overlap or even intersect.

    “This suggestion is supported by DeKeyser and Li (2021), who have argued that implicit learning may occur via diverse pathways, and therefore abilities tested by implicit aptitude measures may not necessarily overlap or even intersect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites DeKeyser and Li (2021) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    All assumptions were met in accordance with Field (2018) and Jeon (2015).

    “All assumptions were met in accordance with Field (2018) and Jeon (2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Field (2018)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Jeon (2015)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Similar results have been reported in other studies including measures of both EWM and PWM.

    “While similar results have been reported in other studies including measures of both EWM and PWM (Hummel, 2009;Li, 2016)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hummel, 2009 source
    • cites Li, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The SRT task measures the process of learning, whereas LLAMA D measures the product of learning.

    “Thus, the SRT task measures the process of learning, whereas LLAMA D measures the product of learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    Implicit and explicit aptitude are separate constructs, each comprising distinct underlying abilities.

    “This result substantiates the argument that implicit and explicit aptitude are separate constructs, each comprising distinct underlying abilities (Li & DeKeyser, 2021)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Li & DeKeyser, 2021 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Only variables that significantly predicted variance in the dependent variable were included in the final model.

    “Following the analysis, only variables that significantly predicted variance in the dependent variable were included in the final model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Focal attention may facilitate performance on LLAMA D but hinder performance on the SRT task.

    “Specifically, Iizuka and DeKeyser (2023) suggest that focal attention may facilitate performance on LLAMA D but hinder performance on the SRT task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Iizuka & DeKeyser, 2023 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductown data

    The reliability indices for the gap-fill test are all above .98 and deemed excellent.

    “The reliability indices for the gap-fill test are all above .98and therefore deemed excellent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Univariate and multivariate outliers were removed.

    “Univariate outliers (cases with a z-score larger than ± 3.3) and multivariate outliers (values with Mahalanobis distance greater than 26.125χ 2 [8] = 26.125,p < 0.001) were removed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A reliability coefficient above 0.4 is considered acceptable for measures of implicit processes.

    “Overall, a reliability coefficient of above 0.4 is considered acceptable for measures of implicit processes, since they typically yield lower indices than measures of explicit processes (Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    PWM has been shown to be implicated in vocabulary acquisition.

    “because PWM has been shown to be implicated in vocabulary acquisition (Juffs & Harrington, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Juffs & Harrington, 2011 source
68 of 68

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The SRT task is visual in nature, whereas LLAMA D is an auditory task.

    “The SRT task is visual in nature, whereas LLAMA D is an auditory task.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The SRT task and LLAMA D differ in stimulus domain, with the SRT relying on non-verbal and LLAMA D on verbal stimuli.

    “Furthermore, the SRT task and LLAMA D differ in terms of stimulus domain, with the former relying on non-verbal and the latter on verbal stimuli.”
2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 2015, Working memory in second language acquisition and processing
  2. 1986, Working memory
  3. 1981, Individual differences & universals in language learning aptitude, 83
  4. 2018, Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics
  5. 2012, Age differences and cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning in ultimate second language attainment
  6. 2013, Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment, 105
  7. IBM Corp, 2020, IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh
  8. 2015, Advancing quantitative methods in second language research, 131
  9. 2011, Implicit and explicit language learning, 101
  10. 2019, The LLAMA tests v3. Lognostics
  11. Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Oxford Placement Test. https://elt.oup.com/feature/global/oxford-online-placement/?cc=gb&selLanguage=en
  12. 2016, Testing aptitude: Investigating Meara’s (2005) LLAMA tests, EUROSLA Yearbook, 16, 179
  13. 1998, A cognitive approach to language learning
  14. 2002, Individual differences and instructed language learning, 69
  15. 2016, Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition, 17
  16. 2014, Using multivariate statistics
  17. 2001, The past, present, and future of second language research, 144

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Pavlekovic, R., & Roehr-Brackin, K.
Affiliations
University of Essex (GB)
Corresponding author
Pavlekovic, Renato
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the European Second Language Association
Publisher
White Rose University Press
Published
2024
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
1-17
ISSN
2399-9101 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.22599/jesla.117
OpenAlex
W4394697314
Semantic Scholar
6ca350571f83e44d63db43479bfe4aa554fa3af1
Cited by
6
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of the European Second Language Association (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
working memory, second language proficiency, serial reaction time, operation span, digit span, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, grammatical knowledge, English as a foreign language

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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