Comparative Analysis Of The Theoretical Perspectives About Foreign Language Aptitude

The research about aptitude has become more robust since the studies of Carroll in 1953. Carroll developed what many researchers depend on when measuring the level of aptitude, the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT). MLAT consists of five subtests which measures three cognitive abilities: grammatical sensitivity, phonetic coding ability, and memory capacity. However, there are some criticism and further development of both the test and the content later on. I will use Carroll’s studies as the starting point of the comparison of the views from three researchers: De Graff (1997), Robinson (2001), and Skehan (2002) as follows.

De Graff (1997) justified the claim by Schmidt (1990, 1994) and Smith (1992) claiming that “consciousness and the enhancement of noticing product, a facilitative effect of explicit knowledge as built up by explicit instruction, on the acquisition of implicit L2 knowledge”. Simply put, De Graff developed the idea that aptitude can be trained by explicit instruction for foreign language learners when aptitude is no longer perceived as an innate gift anymore. Moreover, when foreign language can be acquired through explicit knowledge, it can even be convertible into implicit procedural knowledge and this can be done through practice of the target language. In his 1997’s study, De Graff investigated which aspects of grammar explicit knowledge most facilitate second language acquisition. The findings revealed that the learners who received explicit instruction scored higher on the complex grammatical structure than the simple syntactic structure and they also scored higher than students who received implicit instruction. In reference to Krashen (1970s, 1980s), aptitude relates to learning with rules which relies on intelligence and abilities. Similarly to Robinson (2005), he argued that Carroll’s model did not take different potential of foreign language learners in formal classroom contexts into consideration. He also mentioned about the importance of considering the learning conditions such as an ability to learn from implicit and explicit instruction or between naturalistic and decontextualized language experiences. However, his previous work in 2002 found a contrasting idea from De Graff.

For Robinson, aptitude plays an important role in all conditions and it will even make its most contribution when the learners receive implicit instruction since learners need to rely on their own ability or learning device. In short, aptitude affects foreign language learning under any conditions. De Graff and Robinson agreed with the effects of explicit instruction when focusing on form but differed when Robinson equalized the importance of implicit learning as well. Furthermore, Robinson (2001) furthered explain Snow’s (1987, 1994) Aptitude Complex Hypothesis by identifying the variations in language learning success under implicit or incidental learning and age factor. The hypothesis includes three principles. First, aptitude consists of complex abilities. Second, cognitive processing abilities differ in contexts and affordances. Third, motivation and affection also have influences. The general cognitive abilities emerged from adult second language acquisition and contrasts to L1 acquisition. In L1, the Universal Grammar is operated. Though, for foreign language learners, anyone who has low phonological WM capacity and speed is likely to have more difficulties in an uptake of the targeted recasts even the learner notice the input. In terms of age, adult learners tend to rely more on the innate learning mechanisms. Meanwhile, they use problem-solving procedures in acquiring foreign language. In addition, explicit instruction matters more with adult learners than implicit learners with children.

Lastly, I will discuss about the study of Skehan (2002). He also criticized Carroll’s three cognitive abilities as outdated and focuses too much on rote memory. Skehan proposed that aptitude relates to both instructed and naturalistic language learning environments with the involvement of forms and meanings of the target language. Skehan furthered emphasizing the complex structure of human cognitive abilities and the specific educational contexts. I find that both Robinson and Skehan gave significance to the foreign language learning in both conditions. It was mentioned that both researchers tried to map the foreign language aptitude to the foreign language instruction so as to enhance the success in learning the language. In other words, L1 competence can be acquired through implicit language learning mechanisms, though foreign language learning relies more on aptitude and age factor in which late learners use more analytical ability in explicit learning condition.

In summary, De Graff (1997), Robinson (2001), and Skehan (2002), similarly, tried to extend the work of Carroll’s (1959) measurable cognitive abilities. De Graff paid attention to the learning contexts as one factor in how WM matter in aptitude or cognitive abilities with slight differences for each one. It is found that explicit instructions facilitate foreign language learners particularly with complex grammatical structures. In contrast, Robinson (2001) and his later studies proved that not only explicit instruction that helped learners learn but the implicit instruction as well. Age of the learners also matter in this case. Simply put, young learners can benefit from implicit instruction similarly to L1 acquisition since they rely on the innate WM mechanisms, whereas adult learners are more suitable to explicit instruction when they need to use the analytical abilities in their WM to learn. Similarly to Skehan (2002), who also stresses the importance of both learning conditions. Both Robinson and Skehan attempted to research the suitable learning instruction to match with the WM or cognitive abilities of the learners which also can be more complex than Carroll’s previous model. Personally speaking, all three different perspectives yield more insight about foreign language aptitude and WM. Both of their shared and different claims are certainly beneficial for further study.