EFFECTS OF METALINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE ON SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Brian Wistner January, 2014 Examining Committee Members Jim Sick, Advisory Chair, International Christian University David Beglar, CITE/TESOL Steven Ross, External Member, University of Maryland Edward Schaefer, External Member, Ochanomizu University Marshall Childs, CITE/TESOL © Copyright 2014 by Brian Wistner iii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of metalinguistic knowledge and language learning aptitude on second language (L2) procedural knowledge. Three lines of inquiry were undertaken: (a) confirming the factorial structure of metalinguistic knowledge and language learning aptitude; (b) testing the relative effects of metalinguistic knowledge and language learning aptitude on L2 procedural knowledge; and (c) assessing the relative contributions of receptive and productive metalinguistic knowledge and components of language learning aptitude to L2 procedural knowledge. Two-hundred-forty-nine Japanese university students participated. One receptive and two productive tests of metalinguistic knowledge related to metalinguistic terminology and English grammatical rules were administered. Learners’ language learning aptitude was measured using the Lunic Language Marathon, which consisted of four scales: number learning, sound-symbol association, vocabulary learning, and language analytical ability. Participants’ L2 procedural knowledge was assessed through performance on a timed writing task. The writing samples were scored for overall quality, L2 complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The scores from each test were subjected to Rasch analyses to investigate the construct validity and unidimensionality of the instruments. The results of the Rasch analyses indicated that the test items fit the Rasch model, supporting the construct validity of the instruments. The unidimensionality of each instrument was established iv through Rasch principal component analyses. Interval-level Rasch measures were used for the subsequent analyses. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that metalinguistic knowledge and language learning aptitude were distinct constructs. A two-factor model showed good model fit and explained the relationship between the two constructs. Structural equation modeling revealed that metalinguistic knowledge significantly predicted L2 procedural knowledge, complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Language learning aptitude, however, was not a statistically significant predictor of the L2 procedural knowledge variables. The results of a path model analysis indicated that productive metalinguistic knowledge was the strongest predictor of L2 procedural knowledge, language analytical ability predicted receptive metalinguistic knowledge, and number learning was negatively associated with L2 procedural knowledge. The findings point to the facilitative role of metalinguistic knowledge in L2 learning and the viability of L2 declarative knowledge becoming proceduralized through practice. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to acknowledge the helpful advice I received from my dissertation defense committee. Drs. Jim Sick, David Beglar, Steven Ross, Edward Schaefer, and Marshall Childs provided valuable feedback and insightful comments that helped to improve many aspects of this dissertation. I would like to thank Hideki Sakai for his contribution to this research. In addition to providing advice throughout the research process, Hideki played a pivotal role in the design of the Japanese testing instruments. He generously provided feedback on previous versions of the tests, offering essential advice on the content and phrasing of the items. I would also like to express my gratitude to the students who participated in this research and to my colleagues who cooperated with data collection and test scoring. Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to my family for their support and patience throughout my doctoral studies. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 The Background of the Issue ...................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................5 Purposes of the Study...............................................................................................7 The Audience for the Study .....................................................................................9 Delimitations ..........................................................................................................10 Key Terminology ...................................................................................................11 The Organization of the Study ...............................................................................13 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...............................................................................15 Declarative and Procedural Knowledge .................................................................15 Characteristics of L2 Implicit and Explicit Knowledge ............................19 Measuring Procedural and Declarative Knowledge ..................................22 Previous Studies of L2 Implicit and Explicit Knowledge .........................26 Language Learning Aptitude .................................................................................39 Conceptualizations of Foreign Language Aptitude .....................................40 vii Operationalizations of Language Aptitude ..................................................46 Modern Language Aptitude Test ...................................................46 Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery .............................................47 Language Aptitude Battery for the Japanese .................................48 Lunic Language Marathon .............................................................50 Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language as Applied to Foreign Language Test ............................................50 Effects of Language Aptitude on L2 Learning ..........................................52 Studies of Metalinguistic Knowledge, Proficiency, and Aptitude .............61 Knowledge and Theory-Based Gaps .....................................................................70 Analytical Gaps ......................................................................................................71 Purposes of the Study.............................................................................................72 Research Questions ................................................................................................76 3. METHODS ....................................................................................................................82 Participants .............................................................................................................82 Instrumentation ......................................................................................................85 Receptive Metalinguistic Knowledge Test ..................................................85 Productive Metalinguistic Knowledge Test ................................................88 Language Learning Aptitude Test ...............................................................91 Procedural Knowledge Test ........................................................................94 Procedures ..............................................................................................................99 Analysis................................................................................................................100 Rasch Analysis .........................................................................................100 Structural Equation Modeling ..................................................................103 viii Analytical Procedures and Evaluative Criteria ........................................106 Modeling Procedures ...................................................................109 Issues of Model Complexity and Sample Size ............................110 4. PRELIMINARY ANALYSES ....................................................................................111 Analysis................................................................................................................111 Receptive Metalinguistic Knowledge Test ..........................................................112 Productive Metalinguistic Knowledge Test .........................................................119 Technical Terminology Scale ..................................................................120 Rule Explanation Scale ............................................................................125