6. Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy

100 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

APTITUDE AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (2005, background): “In a subsequent study (Robinson, 2002c) these measures of aptitude were similarly found to be poor predictors of incidental learning, but a measure of working memory for text, based on Daneman and Carpenter’s (1980) reading span test, was significantly and positively correlated with incidental…”
Individual Differences: Interplay of Learner Characteristics and Learning Environment (2009, background): “Particularly, four ID factors have received special attention in past second language (L2) research (see, e.g., Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Robinson, 2002a; Skehan, 1989): motivation, language aptitude, learning styles, and learning strategies.”
Pragmalinguistic Awareness: Is it Related to Motivation and Proficiency? (2005, methodology): “Individual differences in attention and awareness Robinson (1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c) has investigated the differential effectiveness of the conscious and unconscious learning of L2 rules within the framework of Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis.”
Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (2016, background): “First and foremost, the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) battery developed by Carroll and his colleague Stanley Sapon (Carroll & Sapon 1959/2002) set a benchmark for all subsequent aptitude measures (e.g. Pimsleur’s PLAB; Green’s York Language Aptitude Test; Petersen & Al-Haik’s DLAB; Parry & Ch”