Individual Differences in L2 Language Learning

The study “The Interactions Between the Effects of Implicit and Explicit Feedback
and Individual Differences in Language Analytic Ability and Working Memory” by Li
was published in 2013, is concerned with the interactions between two types of
feedback, implicit and explicit, as well as two aptitude components, language analytic
ability and working memory, in second language Chinese learning; the study has
been conducted in a highly controlled laboratory setting to ensure the results can be
connected to the mere factor of aptitude.
The study was part of a larger research about the factors constraining the
effectiveness of corrective feedback; the focus here is on the effect of the correlation
between feedback type and aptitude components on L2 learning, the following
research questions were formulated (Li, 2013: ) :
1. What is the relationship between the effectiveness of implicit and explicit
feedback and learners’ individual differences in language analytic ability?
2. What is the relationship between the two feedback types and learners’
individual differences in working memory?
3. Do the two aptitude components interact differently with the two feedback
types?
In total seventy-eight L2 Chinese learners, aged 18-38, were chosen from two large
U.S. universities; amongst them 34 females and 44 males participated, three
students were Korean native speakers the rest were native in English. All participants
had to take a proficiency test to ensure all groups would be distributed evenly in their
proficiency level; three groups were assigned: implicit feedback, explicit feedback,
and a control group.
The classifier was selected as the target structure since it is difficult for learners at all
levels, although it is taught early on in a L2 Chinese course. Therefore, the
participants were familiar with the topic; however, they were not mastering it yet
which is ideal for feedback management (Li, 2013: ).
As part of the testing 15 classifiers were chosen from a list of 40 possible ones,
selected from textbooks and grammar books, after a survey was conducted with a
group of 45 Chinese academic native speakers; two tasks were then constructed with
the 15 classifiers. This preparational survey was necessary to test the classifiers
regarding their collocation with the accompanied noun, as well as the ability to
substitute them with a general one (Li, 2013: 639-644).
The first task was a picture description; the participants were to describe seven
pictures that contained fifteen cases of classifier use. The picture had different
numbers of various objects; therefore, learners were required to use classifiers and
to report how many there were. The second task was a spotting of the differences;
three sets of pictures were used with two nearly-identical pictures differing in only a
few aspects. A native speaker was paired with a study participant, each could only
see one of the pictures, the learner then proceeded to ask questions and find the
differences between the pictures; the completion of the task required the use of the
15 pre-evaluated classifiers. The native speaker provided explicit or implicit feedback
in response to the learner’s wrong classifier use.

Barbara Scharf 11832163

The control group had a slightly different task to attain, they had to read a story about
a Chinese idiom and retell it by following some clues; the story didn’t require the pre-
selected classifiers and no feedback was provided to the participants (Li, 2013: 639-
644).
The measures used in the study included a proficiency test, tests of treatment
effects, a language analytic ability test, and a working memory test. Each participant
attended three one-on-one sessions with the researchers: in the first session they
took the proficiency test and the pre-test for a treatment effect task; the second
session started with a treatment effect task, after the participant received some
feedback (either implicit or explicit) on the non-target-like quantifiers use in dyadic
interactions; in the final session the participant took the delayed post test for the
treatment effect, the test of language analytic ability and the working memory test (Li,
2013: 639-644).
The results showed a two-factor division of the principal components: the treatment
effect tasks as well as the proficiency test were following the same model labelled L2
competence; language analytic ability and working memory were the other two
factors following a different common model labelled aptitude – the two factors
explained 66% of the total variance. Additionally, a causal path from aptitude to L2
competence was identified. Moreover, the results showed an overall improvement
between the pre- and post-test across all three groups, however, the biggest
improvement was with the group of explicit feedback and the control group showed
the fewest improvement relatively to the others. Despite the findings the interactions
between feedback and aptitude remain unclear (Li, 2013: 644-646).
The study concludes that further research in the field is necessary, a componential
approach is recommended over a monolithic; furthermore, the demand for an
integrated situated approach to the role of language aptitude is obtainable. It would,
also, be valuable to complete follow-up research to the present study since this was
according to Li (2013) the first empirical attempt to investigate the relationship
between feedback type and aptitude components. Finally, there has been a clear
correlation between language analytical-ability and implicit feedback as well as
between working memory and explicit feedback (Li, 2013: 646-650).

Bibliography
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit
feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory.
The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.

Barbara Scharf 11832163