Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
The cognitive contribution to the development of proficiency in a foreign language
Benő Csapó a, Marianne Nikolov b,⁎
a
b
Institute of Education, University of Szeged, 6722 Szeged, Petőfi sgt. 30–34, Hungary
Department of English Applied Linguistics, University of Pécs, 7624 Pécs, Ifjúság u. 6., Hungary
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 4 October 2006
Received in revised form 29 November 2008
Accepted 1 January 2009
Keywords:
Cognitive skills
Language proficiency in English and German
Longitudinal study
a b s t r a c t
The present paper reports results of a longitudinal research project studying the contribution of cognitive
skills and other factors to proficiency in a foreign language (L2) in the Hungarian educational context. The
larger project aims to describe the levels of L2 proficiency of school-aged populations in order to explore the
conditions and factors contributing to processes and outcomes in foreign language education in public
schools. For this purpose, paper and pencil tests were administered in English and German as a foreign
language to nationally representative student samples. The project also aims to find answers to some
theoretical questions; therefore, a questionnaire and other assessment instruments complemented L2 tests
to provide insights into how participants' cognitive, affective and first language (L1) variables, as well as their
social and school variables interact with one another over time. Students' general thinking and learning
abilities were assessed with an inductive reasoning test.
In the present paper we focus on the relationship between students' proficiency in English or German and
inductive reasoning skills to show how general cognitive abilities interact with levels of L2 proficiency. We
use a multivariate context to explore complex relationships between L2 levels in English and German and
inductive reasoning skills if influences of other variables are controlled. We present results of multiple
regression analyses on L2 listening, reading, and writing tasks in the two target languages. In the present
paper we use both cross-sectional and longitudinal data to examine the relationships between students' L2
proficiency in the first phase (2000) and two years later (2002). Thus, a longitudinal research design was
implemented by repeating cross-sectional assessment at a two-year interval.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Background to study
A number of studies have been conducted into the assessment of
skills and competencies over the last two decades. The most
intensively studied skills and abilities are related to learning skills
determining success in learning tasks in the long run. Inductive
reasoning is one of these skills often considered the main component
of basic learning abilities (Pellegrino & Glaser, 1982; Ropo, 1987) and
an indicator of learning potential (Resing, 1993). The role and
importance of inductive reasoning in educational contexts has been
studied in a number of empirical projects (see e.g., Csapó, 1997;
Klauer, 1999), with several training experiments carried out with the
assumption that its development contributes to the success of
learning in a wide range of domains (e.g., Klauer, 1997; Klauer,
Willmes, & Phye, 2002; Klauer & Phye, 2008).
A similar trend has characterized research into cognitive variables
contributing to second language acquisition (SLA), as the relationship
between proficiency in L2 and general thinking skills has been of
interest to researchers for a long time. Language learning aptitude has
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Csapó), [email protected]
(M. Nikolov).
1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.01.002
been hypothesized to be the best predictor of L2 attainment, and
recently discussions of its role have re-emerged (e.g., Carroll, 1990,
1993; Ellis, 1994; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1992, 1993; Grigorienko,
Sternberg, & Ehrman, 2000; Harley & Hart, 1997; McDonough, 1999;
Oxford & Ehrman, 1993; Parry & Stansfield, 1990; Robinson, 2002;
Skehan, 1991, 2002; Sparks & Ganschow, 2001; Sternberg, 2002;
Spolsky, 2000). As Sparks and Ganschow (2001, p. 100) suggest,
aptitude tests should be updated and new norms developed. However,
no large-scale study is available on how aptitude contributes to L2
proficiency.
Language learning aptitude is traditionally conceptualized as a
four-component construct and can be measured by the Modern
Language Aptitude Test (MLAT, Carroll, 1990). Formally, the subtests of
MLAT tap into four specific abilities: (1) phonetic coding ability;
(2) grammatical sensitivity; (3) inductive ability; and (4) rote learning
ability. Components (2) and (3) require learners to apply their
inductive reasoning skills, whereas (1) and (4) test short-term
memory as well as other areas. A different construct of language
learning aptitude was proposed by Cummins (1991) and Cummins and
Swain (1986), who distinguish between basic interpersonal communication skills (context-embedded and relatively undemanding cognitively) and cognitive academic skills (related to context-reduced,
cognitively demanding communication) based on findings in bilingual
210
B. Csapó, M. Nikolov / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
education research. Despite the wide acceptance of this distinction
(e.g., Ellis, 1994), this line of reasoning has not resulted in a validated
aptitude measure.
Recent cognitive approaches emphasize a different distinction
between processes interacting in SLA. As Skehan (1998) claims, two
systems contribute to language development: a rule-based analytic
system and a formulaic system based on examples. This proposed SLA
model is in line with a dual declarative/procedural model widely
accepted in neurolinguistics and cognitive science (Ullman, 2001).
Approaching the issue from a different perspective, Dörnyei and
Skehan (2002, p. 619) suggest that the construct of language learning
aptitude should relate to stages in information processing. Despite
these new approaches, so far no new validated instrument has been
designed to tap into these proposed constructs of aptitude.
As aptitude tests are always constructed and administered in
learners' first language, such tests need to be validated for each
language. Two such instruments, both based on the MLAT, have been
validated for Hungarian learners in recent years. MENYÉT (Ottó, 1996),
the Hungarian version of MLAT, was designed and validated for adults
(Ottó & Nikolov, 2003), whereas Kiss and Nikolov (2005) validated one
for young learners. The administration of both aptitude tests requires
60 min, thus their use was not feasible in our large-scale project.
In summary, all conceptualizations of aptitude include inductive
reasoning and this is how we chose to assess aptitude, since an
assessment instrument of inductive reasoning validated on representative samples of Hungarian learners was available (Csapó, 1997, 1998,
2001). The test is easy to administer in 30 min and it has proved
challenging enough for students between the ages of 10 and 18. Its
three subtests (verbal analogies, number series, and number analogies) tap into verbal and numeric contents of inductive processes.
Besides cognitive variables, affective factors have also been
explored in the Hungarian context. Dörnyei, Csizér, and Németh
(2006) inquired into 8th graders' language learning motivation,
language choice and learning effort in large-scale surveys in 1993,
1999, and 2004. The most important findings revealed that the
majority of Hungarian learners were highly motivated to study
modern languages, their attitudes were favorable towards speakers
of the language of their choice, and they were willing to exert an effort
to study languages. As for their choices, the majority voted for English
and German in the first place, but a major shift towards English was
observed over the years. In a different large-scale study, Nikolov
(2003) analyzed questionnaire data collected from representative
samples of Hungarian learners in 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th grade
(participants of the present study). The findings are similar to those of
previous surveys, but as classroom processes were also inquired into,
some data became available on what happens in English and German
classes and how classroom activities interact with students' motivation. Some of these results will be referred to in the discussion section.
As has been shown, cognitive and affective variables have been
examined in the Hungarian context. The next step forward involves an
examination of how cognitive, affective, and other variables contribute to L2 proficiency over time. In the present paper we explore
two aspects related to the above discussions: how cognitive variables
contribute to (1) learners' performances on language tests (crosssectional design) and (2) their development over a period of two years
(longitudinal design).
The present paper focuses on a particular socio-educational
context – a member state of the European Union – and as such the
study needs to be placed in a wider historical perspective. Recently,
the learning of modern foreign languages, and levels of attainment in
them, have moved to the fore in Europe (Council of Europe, 2001), as
the aim is to encourage students to become plurilingual, culturally
aware, and tolerant citizens of a multiethnic Europe. The knowledge of
modern foreign languages is especially important in Hungary, where
the first language is not widely spoken in other countries. For several
social and historical reasons, L2 education has lagged behind other
European countries (Fekete, Major, & Nikolov, 1999; Medgyes &
Miklósy, 2000). Although Russian was a mandatory foreign language
for decades, the majority of the population failed to achieve a useful
level in it. Since the change of regime in 1989, foreign languages have
played an exceptional role in Hungarian education. Perceived as
extremely important, they enjoy a prestigious status: for example,
proficiency exam certificate holders get special bonuses at entrance to
universities, workplaces pay them special top-ups, and a decisive
criterion in parents' choice of school for their offspring is the foreign
language program of the institution. Recently, the demand for English
as a lingua franca has consistently increased, but schools can hardly
fulfill students' requests (Andor, 2000; Vágó, 2007), as teachers are
tenured in their jobs and German classes also need to be filled. As a
result of these processes, schools stream students in different
language groups; thus, differences have emerged between students
studying English and German. The cognitive and academic abilities of
the latter group are significantly lower than those of the former
(Csapó & Nikolov, 2002). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the
conditions of L2 learning in the two most widely taught foreign
languages. As for the language testing background to this study, the
conceptualization and assessment of language proficiency is based on
taxonomies of communicative competences and language ability
(Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Council of
Europe, 2001), in which learners' performances are assessed in their
language skills. In the choice of task and text types, piloting and
validating tests, and evaluating results, we followed the principles of
communicative language testing (Alderson, Clapham, & Wall, 1995;
Bachman & Palmer, 1996).
2. The study
Hungarian students' level of proficiency was assessed in English
and German in 2000 and 2002 (Csapó & Nikolov, 2001, 2002; Nikolov
& Csapó, 2002) in line with major Hungarian educational research
projects monitoring other school subjects (Csapó, 1998, 2002). The
present study looks into the relationships between cognitive factors
and language proficiency to answer the following research questions:
(1) How do cognitive skills and reading in the first language (L1)
correlate with learners' performances in English and German in
6th, 8th, 10th and 12th grade (ages 12, 14, 16, and 18)?
(2) What is the relationship between cognitive skills, prior knowledge, affective factors, school and family characteristics, reading in L1 and success in learning English and German over a
period of two years in 6th and 8th, and in 10th and 12th grades?
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
Representative samples of Hungarian students were chosen from
primary and secondary schools in the spring of 2000. The units for
sampling and data collection were school classes from all types of
schools (mostly 8-year primary and 4-year secondary schools, but
representative samples of other institutions were also involved). Since
previous small-scale studies indicated considerable regional differences in levels of proficiency, relatively large samples were necessary
to allow us to examine variations; thus, approximately 300 schools
participated.
At the first measurement point in May, 2000 altogether 29,126
students were assessed in grades 6, 8, and 10 (ages of 12, 14, and 16).
In the second phase (May, 2002) 41,055 students were involved in
grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 (age 18) from the same schools. This sampling
allowed a longitudinal design for students assessed in the first phase
in their 6th and 10th grade, as they attended the 8th and 12th grade of
the same schools in the second phase, two years later. In the 8 plus 4
B. Csapó, M. Nikolov / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
Fig. 1. The design of the entire project (sample sizes in parentheses).
system students change schools after the 8th grade, thus, no link could
be established between the 8th and 10th graders. Also, students who
changed schools between the two phases were not followed.
This research design resulted in two sets of cross-sectional data
(2000 and 2002) and two sets of longitudinal data (see Fig. 1), as a
number of students in the 6th and 10th grades in 2000 were assessed
a second time as 8th and 12th graders in 2002. From the participants
of the year 2000 samples 4958 6th graders and 4999 10th graders
were assessed two years later.
As the sub-samples consisting of those participants who were
assessed twice (see arrows in Fig. 1) did not result from direct
sampling, these samples are not strictly representative for the whole
corresponding cohorts. Therefore, in test analyses and other detailed
examinations we use data of the largest available (representative)
samples, whereas longitudinal analyses are performed on the data of
students assessed twice. Some students changed schools or dropped
out between the two measurements and were not retested; therefore,
the performances of the longitudinal sub-samples may differ slightly
from the corresponding whole cohort of the first and the second
assessment.
The differences between the statistical characteristics of the whole
samples and the sub-samples tested twice (both in 2000 and 2002)
were carefully examined and they turned out to be so marginal that they
do not affect the generalizability of the results for the whole cohort. For
example, the difference of results on the inductive reasoning test for the
whole 6th grader sample in 2000 and the first measurement of the
longitudinal sub-sample was very small (whole 6th grader sample:
mean= 34.287, sd = 16.979; longitudinal sub-sample: mean= 34.695,
sd= 16.377). In a similar way, we may compare the second measurement of the longitudinal sub-sample with the entire sample of the 2002
8th graders. The differences (longitudinal sub-sample: mean= 50.040,
sd= 18.060; whole 8th grader sample: mean= 49.110, sd = 18.280) are
similarly small. This fact allows us to exploit the benefits of both crosssectional and longitudinal design.
3.2. Instruments
Three types of instruments were used for data collection in 2000:
(1) L2 proficiency tests in English and German, (2) a questionnaire on
learners' school achievements, attitudes toward L2 learning, their
211
language learning plans and self concept, and their parents' level of
education (to indicate socio-economic status), and (3) a standardized
inductive reasoning skills test. In addition to these, in 2002 a reading
comprehension test was also administered in the first language (L1,
Hungarian).
All participants' proficiency was assessed in three L2 skills
(listening and reading comprehension, and writing) by paper and
pencil tests in regular classroom settings at the end of the school year.
The English and German tests were based on the prescribed
achievement targets of the national core curriculum; they were
identical in their construct, structure, type of texts and tasks and
length (number of items) for the two target languages. Table 1
illustrates the structure of the booklets, the text and the task types for
grade 8.
The construct, the task and text types were the same in 2000 and
2002, but the actual texts were different. The task types were familiar
to the vast majority of the participants, as they were similar to the
ones used in published course materials used in schools. All tasks
focused on meaning (and not form) and were in harmony with
curricular achievement targets for the four age groups. The texts were
authentic, except for the listening tasks in grades 6, 8 and 10, in which
scripted materials were used, as listening comprehension (the most
neglected skill in schools) was expected to be problematic according
to classroom observation studies (Nikolov, 1999). In grade 6 writing
tasks integrated reading, as in the pilot phase the majority of the
students failed to produce meaningful sentences in a short writing
task. Therefore, tasks required learners to choose and copy words into
a gapped invitation to a party and to fill in a form based on a short text
with personal data. In grade 8 students were asked to write a short
letter based on diary entries, whereas 10th and 12th graders wrote a
guided composition on whom they would nominate to win a
competition and why. Booklets were produced in two versions: the
sequence of the tasks was different, but the actual tasks were
identical. The reliability (Cronbach alpha) of these tests varied
between 0.94 and 0.96 for both English and German.
Besides the language tests, in both assessment phases a questionnaire was administered to all students on their school marks (in
all subjects and in L2), language learning attitudes, motivation, plans
and self concept, and family background (to indicate socio-economic
status). The questionnaire comprised multiple-choice and Likert-scale
items.
The inductive reasoning test included verbal analogies, number
analogies, and number series tasks in Hungarian to assess the
students' general cognitive abilities (Cronbach alpha = 0.94). It had
been piloted and validated in previous studies and served as a valid
and reliable indicator of Hungarian learners' inductive reasoning skills
(Csapó, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002). The same test was administered both
times to all participants.
In 2002, a reading comprehension test in L1 was also administered
to 6th, 8th and 10th graders. It comprised two tasks; each text was an
authentic narrative of about 300 words and each task included 15
items: nine items were closed (true-false, multiple choice, and
sequencing), four were open cloze items, and two required short
answers. The same test was administered to each cohort. The L1
Table 1
The structure and content of booklets for grade 8.
Skills
Task
Input
No of items
Reading 1
Reading 2
Reading 3
Reading 4
Reading 5
Listening 1
Listening 2
Writing
Match texts with meanings
Match questions with answers
Match words with definitions
Match titles with texts
Match ads with missing words/expressions
Multiple choice on videos
MC on planning a holiday
Short informal letter
Public notices and their meanings
Quiz questions and answers
Definitions
Titles and blurbs
Advertisements
Conversation (scripted)
Conversation (scripted)
Diary entries for seven days
10
8
10
8
9
7
8
marking scheme
212
B. Csapó, M. Nikolov / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
Table 2
Correlations between proficiency in English skills, reading comprehension in Hungarian,
and inductive reasoning skills (based on 2002 assessment of whole samples).
Year
Test
6th grade
English writing
English listening
Hungarian reading
Inductive reasoning
8th grade English writing
English listening
Hungarian reading
Inductive reasoning
10th grade English writing
English listening
Hungarian reading
Inductive reasoning
12th grade English writing
English listening
Inductive reasoning
English reading English writing English listening
0.715
0.574
0.487
0.527
0.662
0.569
0.375
0.505
0.609
0.494
0.275
0.430
0.455
0.422
0.335
0.577
0.493
0.519
0.300
0.329
0.505
0.372
0.467
0.303
0.441
0.407
0.276
0.381
0.220
0.310
0.277
0.269
0.149
German, we can examine correlation coefficients of a large number of
variables. The results are presented in Table 2 for English and in Table 3
for German. First, we analyze data for the two target languages
separately; then, we compare figures for English and German in the
four age groups. In our comparisons of correlation coefficients we
discuss differences if they are larger than 0.1. (Taking the sample sizes
into account, these differences are statistically significant at p b 0.001).
4.2. Relationships between English, inductive reasoning, and L1 reading
n N 3000, p b 0.001 for all coefficients.
reading comprehension test was not administered to 12th graders
because of an expected ceiling effect and time constraints. With the
exception of the L2 tests, all instruments were administered in L1.
3.3. Procedures
Data collection was implemented in the same way in both phases.
The paper and pencil tests were administered locally with the help of
trained external assessors in learners' classes in May 2000 and 2002.
The reading booklets including five reading tasks (Table 1) were
completed in a 45-minute class session, and the listening and writing
tasks were done in another session of the same length. A third session
was devoted to filling in the inductive reasoning test and the
questionnaire. Writing tasks were evaluated centrally by two teams
of trained assessors (English and German) after standard-setting
sessions; data were entered into files during the summer. Schools got
their coded feedback during the fall. In the present paper we use data
on questionnaire items, inductive reasoning skills, and L2 proficiency
tests from the longitudinal samples. When focusing on predictors of
L2 proficiency in some analyses the language proficiency measured in
2002 will be represented by a single variable. For this purpose, the
equally weighted reading, writing and listening test results were
transformed into a Z-scale and Z-scores of the three skills were totaled
(Tables 6–9).
As was mentioned in the section on participants' samples, we
analyze students' data providing the largest possible representative
samples. Tables indicate the samples used for the computations.
4. Results
4.1. Relationships between L2 proficiency and cognitive skills
The first research question concerns the relationships between
participants' levels of proficiency in L2 (English and German) and
cognitive skills, and other variables by analyzing within-age correlations. As besides L2 proficiency, inductive reasoning skills and other
data were also collected on a number of student characteristics, these
analyses are placed in the context of these relationships. Therefore, in
order to increase the validity of the results, some other variables are
added to the analyses. Relationships are examined with two variables
indicating students' developmental level of cognitive skills: reading
comprehension in L1 and general intellectual development (represented by inductive reasoning).
The four age groups (grades 6, 8, 10, and 12) and two target
languages allow us to study eight separate sets of relationships on the
data collected in 2002. As three skills were assessed in English and
The correlation coefficients computed from data of the second
assessment (2002) are summarized for the three English skills, L1
reading, and inductive reasoning in Table 2. The highest correlations
were found between the L2 reading and L2 writing skills in each age
group (0.715, 0.662, 0.609 and 0.455). However, in the case of 8th and
12th graders the differences are minimal between these figures and
correlations between reading, listening, and writing in grade 8,
reading and listening in grade 12. Beyond the similarities of the
underlying cognitive and linguistic processes of reading and writing,
these high correlations may be attributed to several factors. In grade 6
the strong relationship must be due to the type of tasks used for
testing learners' writing skills. For the youngest age group, writing
tasks integrated writing with reading: students were expected to
choose words from a list to fill in a gapped invitation and a form with
information provided in a short text. In other words, writing was
actually minimal, it involved copying appropriate words in context,
reflecting achievement targets in the curriculum and a low level of
interlanguage in L2 writing. In grade 8 reading and writing skills were
also interrelated, as students wrote a short personal letter based on
short entries in a diary, and they needed to use the given words and
expressions in meaningful sentences.
The correlations between reading and writing skills in 8th and 10th
grade are similar, but lower in grade 12, indicating weaker relationships. This is interesting, as in 10th and 12th grades, writing tasks
were guided compositions tapping into learners' productive skills
with minimal prompt. Students were required to write about 150
words, and their writings were assessed along four criteria: task
achievement, vocabulary, grammar/accuracy, and text cohesion.
Correlations between listening comprehension, reading comprehension, and writing in English are fairly high in 6th and 8th grades,
indicating that although the booklets did tap into different L2 skills,
they are strongly interrelated. In 10th and 12th grades, however,
relationships are weaker, especially in the case of listening and writing
in the oldest group. Decreasing correlations over the years in the
cross-sectional datasets show that proficiency in the three skills
Table 3
Correlations between proficiency in German skills, reading comprehension in Hungarian,
and inductive reasoning skills (based on 2002 assessment of whole samples).
Year
Test
German
reading
6th grade
German writing
German listening
Hungarian reading
Inductive reasoning
German writing
German listening
Hungarian reading
Inductive reasoning
German writing
German listening
Hungarian reading
Inductive reasoning
German writing
German listening
Inductive reasoning
0.635
0.545
0.390
0.453
0.605
0.502
0.278
0.427
0.606
0.547
0.263
0.385
0.566
0.432
0.381
8th grade
10th grade
12th grade
n N 3000, p b 0.001 for all coefficients.
German
writing
German
listening
0.488
0.459
0.464
0.223
0.291
0.394
0.357
0.422
0.213
0.320
0.444
0.317
0.419
0.186
0.315
0.318
0.282
0.174
B. Csapó, M. Nikolov / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
Table 4
Correlations between proficiency in three skills in English in 6th and 10th grade, and
two years later in 8th and 12th grade, respectively.
First assessment
(2000)
Test
6th grade
Reading
Writing
Listening
Inductive reasoning
Reading
Writing
Listening
Inductive reasoning
10th grade
Second assessment
(2002; 8th and 12th grade)
Reading
Writing
Listening
0.570
0.528
0.418
0.446
0.623
0.485
0.428
0.390
0.529
0.519
0.388
0.475
0.408
0.449
0.310
0.260
0.407
0.433
0.398
0.359
0.302
0.249
0.238
0.177
n N 2300, p b 0.001 for all coefficients.
becomes gradually less dependent on one another, most importantly
between 6th and 12th grades.
As for the relationship between reading comprehension in L1 and
L2, the correlations are highest (0.487) for the youngest age group and
decrease gradually (0.375; 0.275) for 8th and 10th graders, respectively. Also, these correlations are lower than correlations among
English skills.
Correlations between inductive reasoning and the three skills in
English indicate similarly strong relationships (0.527; 0.505; 0.430;
0.335) to those found for between-skills. In line with other correlations in Table 2, they decrease over the grades. As for the relationships
between inductive reasoning and English skills, they are consistently
somewhat stronger for reading comprehension than for the other
skills in each grade (see Table 2).
213
tasks in these two grades. (3) L1 and L2 reading comprehension scores
are less strongly related than the three L2 skills. (4) The relationships
between inductive reasoning skills and L2 skills are consistently
stronger for reading and in some cases writing than for listening
comprehension in 6th and 12th grades. (5) Correlations between
inductive reasoning and L2 skills in both languages are generally larger
than the correlations between L1 and L2 skills and in many cases these
differences tend to be greater than 0.1.
Systematic differences are also found in the two sets of data:
(1) Some correlations in 6th and 8th grades are higher for learners of
English indicating somewhat stronger relationships in their case;
(2) the picture is more mixed in the datasets for 10th and 12th grades:
relationships are either fairly similar or even a bit stronger for German
than in the case of English.
4.5. Relationships between proficiency levels in L2 and inductive
reasoning skills over time
In this section we seek an answer to the second research question
involving the same participants tested in 2000 and 2002. We analyze
the relationship between cognitive skills and L2 proficiency in grades
6 and 10 and two years later in the levels of performances in English
and German in grades 8 and 12. On the basis of the relationships
between the data collected in 2000 and 2002, we can estimate the
factors influencing the success of language learning. For these
analyses, first we explore inter-age relationships between language
skills and inductive reasoning; then, we apply multiple regression
models to involve more variables and determine the main influencing
factors.
4.6. Relationships for English
4.3. Relationships between German, inductive reasoning, and L1 reading
Let us now analyze data on learners of German presented in
Table 3. Similarly to English, the highest correlations were found
between the L2 reading and L2 writing skills in the four age groups
(0.635, 0.605, 0.606 and 0.566), although these correlations are very
similar to those characterizing relationships between listening and
reading in 8th and 10th grades. The weakest relationships are found
between German listening and writing in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades.
Correlations weaken over the years, especially between 6th and 12th
grades.
As to the relationships between reading comprehension in German
and L1, correlations are highest (0.390) in grade 6, and a slight
decrease characterizes results in 8th and 10th grade, though figures
are similar in the older groups (0.278; 0.263). Correlations between
German learners' inductive reasoning skills and their proficiency in L2
reading comprehension indicate moderately strong relationships
(0.453; 0.427; 0.385; 0.381), similarly to correlations with L2 writing
and L2 listening; they are, however, similar in all four years. As for the
relationships between inductive reasoning and the three skills in
German, they are stronger for reading comprehension and writing,
and weaker for listening in the two younger grades, whereas the
relationships are less clear in the older years. A slight decrease
characterizes relationships over time (see Table 3).
4.4. Comparing learners of English and German
A comparison of data for learners of English (Table 2) and German
(Table 3) indicates similarities. (1) Overall, relationships between
variables weaken over time, especially between 6th and 12th grades.
(2) In all four years the highest correlations are found between reading
comprehension and writing in both English and German, although the
other figures across skills are fairly similar in the younger groups.
Relationships are almost identical in 8th and 10th grades, despite the
major difference in the cognitive and linguistic demand in the writing
Inter-age correlations for the three skills in English presented in
Table 4 show how the earlier (6th and 10th grade) proficiency level in
a skill relates to the level of the same skill two years later (in 8th and
12th grade). Thus, the correlations indicate the stability of skill
development. The between-skill correlations show how the level of
proficiency in an L2 skill is related to the development of another L2
skill. These data allow us to analyze the relationships between skills in
prior L2 knowledge and L2 proficiency two years later in the same
learners.
As for the inter-age relationships for learners of English (Table 4),
reading proved to be the most stable skill with correlations of 0.570
between 6th and 8th grade, and 0.623 between 10th and 12th grade.
Correlations between reading and writing and writing two years later
are similarly high. English writing performances in grades 6 and 10 are
the second best predictors of success in all three skills, but the
correlations are lower than for reading in the older age group. The
correlations for listening show the weakest relationships with all
skills, including listening skills two years later, especially in the
transition between 10th and 12th year. Correlations between
Table 5
Correlations between proficiency in three skills in German in 6th and 10th grade, and
two years later in 8th and 12th grade, respectively.
First assessment
(2000)
Test
6th grade
Reading
Writing
Listening
Inductive reasoning
Reading
Writing
Listening
Inductive reasoning
10th grade
n N 2300, p b 0.001 for all coefficients.
Second assessment
(2002; 8th and 12th grade)
Reading
Writing
Listening
0.469
0.334
0.180
0.345
0.590
0.553
0.356
0.370
0.436
0.369
0.160
0.391
0.475
0.603
0.279
0.269
0.355
0.246
0.135
0.252
0.352
0.329
0.259
0.118
214
B. Csapó, M. Nikolov / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
Table 6
The percentage of variance of proficiency in English in grade 8 explained by variables
assessed in grade 6.
Independent variables: measured
in first assessment (6th grade)
Dependent variables assessed in grade 8
Reading
Listening
Writing
English total
Grade point average
Language mark
Attitude toward learning language
The intended level of education
Language learning plans
Parents' education
Language self concept
Inductive reasoning
English reading
English writing
English listening
Total variance explained (R2)
0.8
6.3
0.1
1.6
1.7
5.1
2.7
1.6
17.5
2.4
5.2
44.9
0.6
1.9
1.5
3.1
1.6
3.2
1.0
1.7
4.3
6.4
4.6
29.8
3.3
3.4
0.7
1.0
4.0
8.8
3.4
3.3
11.5
0.2
6.3
45.9
2.4
6.0
0.9
2.6
3.2
3.3
3.2
7.7
14.6
7.5
4.2
55.7
Figures significant at least at p b 0.01 are in italics.
inductive reasoning and the English language skills are quite high in
the transition from 6th to 8th grade, but somewhat lower in 10th to
12th grade data. The overall picture indicates a systematic relationship
between learners' proficiency in English in 6th and 10th grade and
their performances two years later.
4.7. Comparing relationships for German and English
As figures in Table 5 illustrate, correlations for learners of German
are lower than those for learners of English in the younger groups,
whereas the figures show a different trend in the transition from 10th
to 12th grade. As for the relationships between performances on the
inductive reasoning and English and German proficiency tests in 6th
and 10th grade and two years later, figures are smaller in the transition
between 6th and 8th grade for learners of German, and they are the
same in the case of the older learners. The pattern for the relationship
between writing in English in 6th grade and the relatively strong
relationship between performances in reading and writing two years
later makes sense, as in grade 6 reading and writing skills were
integrated in the writing tasks. However, a much weaker relationship
is reflected by the low correlations between German writing in 6th
grade and reading and writing two years later. This finding may be
related to the generally lower performances in German (in the present
study, see Csapó & Nikolov, 2001 for further detail, and in a follow-up
enquiry, see Nikolov & Józsa, 2006) and it also means that proficiency
in German is less stable than in English.
The level of proficiency in L2 skills and general intellectual abilities
(represented by inductive reasoning) show weaker relationships with
L2 proficiency two years later in the case of German than in the case of
English in the transition between 6th and 8th grade, whereas the
correlations are almost identical in the older groups. It is likely that
other variables such as learning opportunities, attitudes, motivation,
and factors related to school, family and peers influence the pace of
development in the German language differently than in the case of
English.
This phenomenon is in line with the observations worded in the
previous sections. To put it differently, as less enthusiastic and more
disadvantaged students study German in the primary schools, their
performances tend to depend more on unpredictable and incidental
influences than those of their peers studying English. In the case of the
older learners, students responsible for low relationships may not be
in secondary schools, as they do not continue their education.
Correlations between German listening comprehension in 6th
grade and the three skills in 8th grade indicate very weak relationships. In contrast, data for the transition between 10th and 12th
grades show a different picture. The correlations between reading and
writing indicate that performances in 10th grade are indeed good
predictors of L2 proficiency two years later; in fact, the strongest
relationship is found between writing in the two grades (0.603),
stronger than for English (0.449). Thus, less variation is found in
students' performances in their transition from 10th to 12th grade
than in the case of younger students.
Comparing the correlations for inductive reasoning skills and the
three skills in English and German in Tables 4 and 5, some trends are
consistent: (1) figures are higher for English than for German in the
younger groups and (2) also for relationships between the two
younger grades than for the older age groups. In addition, (3) relationships tend to be stronger between inductive reasoning and reading
and writing in both L2s than for listening.
4.8. Multiple regression models
In order to estimate how certain variables predict L2 proficiency
two years later, multiple regression analyses were performed. In
regression analysis the impact of one (independent) variable on
another (dependent) one is estimated by the proportion of variance
explained by the examined independent variable. As the independent
variables may also correlate with each other, some of them may
indicate mediated effect. As regression models take explained
variance into account only once, mediated impacts can be filtered out.
Language proficiency, the dependent variable in the models, is
represented both by data on the three L2 skills and a single L2 variable
composed by combining the three skills for the purpose of multiple
regression analysis. As for the independent variables (predictors), we
used variables showing high correlations with one or more L2 skills in
previous analyses. These variables represent different areas affecting
language learning. Separate analyses were performed for the two
target languages (English or German) and for the two age groups in
them (see Tables 6–9).
The same set of independent variables was used in each analysis,
thus the effect of these variables on the target variables can be
compared directly. Tables 6–9 include only the percentages of the
variance explained by the independent variables (beta multiplied by
the correlation coefficient and by 100).
As a first step, the regression models for English are examined.
Figures in Tables 6 and 7 indicate the percentage of the variance of the
dependent variables (students' proficiency in three skills in English at
the end of grade 8 and grade 12) explained by the eleven independent
variables used in the models.
As expected on the basis of the correlations presented in the
previous sections, the best predictor of overall proficiency in English
in grade 8 is the level of L2 reading comprehension measured in grade
6 (14.6% variance explained in Table 6). The ratio of explained variance
of the level of reading comprehension in grade 8 is even higher: 17.5%
and it is also high in the case of writing: 11.5%. Other components of
Table 7
The percentage of variance of proficiency in English in grade 12 explained by variables
assessed in grade 10.
Independent variables: measured
in first assessment (10th grade)
Dependent variables assessed in grade 12
Reading
Listening
Writing
English total
Grade point average
Language mark
Attitude toward learning language
The intended level of education
Language learning plans
Parents' education
Language self concept
Inductive reasoning
English reading
English writing
English listening
Total variance explained (R2)
3.7
2.2
− 0.8
0.2
1.5
2.9
3.4
0.6
24.3
4.1
7.7
49.7
0.7
0.4
− 0.3
0.4
− 0.1
0.8
1.3
0.5
3.9
2.9
2.5
13.1
5.5
0.8
3.3
2.1
2.7
0.1
− 0.3
0.1
5.6
2.3
9.0
31.4
5.0
1.4
0.6
1.2
1.9
2.2
0.6
2.1
5.7
11.0
5.6
47.2
Figures significant at least at p b 0.01 are in italics.
B. Csapó, M. Nikolov / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
215
Table 8
The percentage of variance of German language knowledge in grade 8 explained by
variables assessed in grade 6.
Table 10
Summary of the results of regression analyses: percentage of variances explained by the
independent variables.
Independent variables: measured
in first assessment (6th grade)
Dependent variables assessed in grade 8
Reading
Listening
Writing
German total
Independent variables: measured
in first assessment (grade 6 or 10)
Grade point average
Language mark
Attitude toward learning language
The intended level of education
Language learning plans
Parents' education
Language self concept
Inductive reasoning
German reading
German writing
German listening
Total variance explained (R2)
2.9
1.7
1.8
0.8
0.8
4.0
− 0.2
3.3
15.0
0.4
0.5
31.1
3.3
0.9
0.5
− 0.1
− 0.2
1.3
0.2
1.9
10.2
0.2
− 0.3
17.9
9.7
5.5
2.0
− 0.7
1.6
4.7
0.3
3.4
9.4
− 0.3
1.6
37.3
7.6
3.8
2.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
4.3
4.6
17.6
0.3
0.0
41.1
Figures significant at least at p b 0.01 are in italics.
prior knowledge, the two other language skills have smaller
contributions to the explained variance (7.5%; 4.2%), whereas the
second best predictor of L2 proficiency is the score on the inductive
reasoning test (7.7%). Language mark in 6th grade explains 6% of
variance; language learning plans, parents' education, language self
concept, and grade point average also explain a significant ratio of
variance. The three language skills in grade 6 explain over 26% of the
variance in grade 8; the total variance explained by the independent
variables amounts to 55.7%. The total variances in the three skills vary:
they are high for reading and writing (44.9% and 45.9%, respectively)
and lower for listening comprehension (29.8%).
The figures show a different picture for English in the 12th grade
(Table 7). The three language skills combined explain over 22% of
variance, including 11% on English writing. Four other variables
contribute significantly to the explained variance: grade point average
5.0%, language learning plans, self concept, and inductive reasoning
about 2% each. The total variance explained in the model is 47.2%. The
ratio of explained variance is different for the older learners in the
three L2 skills: 24.3% of variance in English reading is explained by
proficiency in the same skill two years earlier (in grade 10), whereas
the ratio for writing is lower (5.6%). The reason must be that these two
skills were more clearly separated in the writing tasks than in the case
of younger learners.
Figures in Tables 8 and 9 summarize the results of regression
analyses for learners of the German language. As for the relationships
between 6th and 8th graders (Table 8), reading comprehension in
German explains the highest ratio of variance (17.6%), followed by
7.6% for grade point average, 4.6% for inductive reasoning, 4.3% for self
concept, 3.8% for language mark and 2.0% for attitudes towards
Table 9
The percentage of variance of proficiency in German in grade 12 explained by variables
assessed in grade 10.
Independent variables: measured
in first assessment (10th grade)
Dependent variables assessed in grade 12
Reading
Listening
Writing
German Total
Grade point average
Language mark
Attitude toward learning language
The intended level of education
Language learning plans
Parents' education
Language self concept
Inductive reasoning
German reading
German writing
German listening
Total variance explained (R2)
1.4
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
4.9
0.6
3.6
19.7
3.0
13.9
48.9
− 1.2
0.0
1.8
− 0.6
1.3
− 0.4
0.0
− 0.1
8.9
3.1
6.2
19.1
4.4
− 0.2
4.6
1.5
0.8
0.3
0.0
2.4
6.7
0.3
22.5
43.4
0.0
0.5
3.6
0.2
2.0
0.3
2.9
1.3
17.3
21.7
3.8
53.2
Figures significant at least at p b 0.01 are in italics.
Grade point average
Language mark
Attitude toward learning language
The intended level of education
Language learning plans
Parents' education
Language self concept
Inductive reasoning
L2 reading
L2 writing
L2 listening
Total variance explained (R2)
Dependent variables: total scores measured in
second assessment (grade 8 or 12)
English
English
German
German
6–8
10–12
6–8
10–12
2.4
6.0
ns
2.6
3.2
3.3
3.2
7.7
14.6
7.5
4.2
55.7
5.0
ns
ns
ns
1.9
2.2
ns
2.1
5.7
11.0
5.6
47.2
7.6
3.8
2.0
ns
ns
ns
4.3
4.6
17.6
ns
ns
41.1
ns
ns
3.6
ns
2.0
ns
2.9
ns
17.3
21.7
3.8
53.2
Figures are significant at least at p b 0.01. The three highest figures are in bold in each
column.
language learning. Interestingly, the contribution of the other
language skills is not significant (data for writing and listening are
extremely low). In other words, it does not seem to matter how good
students' listening and writing skills are in 6th grade, what matters is
their reading skills. In this age group the lowest ratio of variance is
explained by the independent variables: 41.1%.
A different picture emerges from analyzing the data of 10th and
12th graders (Table 9). German writing results in 10th grade explain
21.7% of variance two years later and German reading explains 17.3% of
variance in grade 12. The contribution of listening skills is also
significant (3.8%), similarly to attitudes towards learning German
(3.6%) and language self concept (2.9%). The total variance explained
by these variables is 53.2%.
If we compare the role of prior L2 proficiency in the four models
large differences can be found in the case of the two languages: in the
case of English, the ratios of explained variance are about 26% in the
younger grades, and 22% in the case of older learners. As for German,
the percentages are 18 and 43, respectively.
In summary, different patterns unfold as we compare the two age
groups (grades 6–8 and 10–12) and the two target languages
(Tables 6–9). Table 10 allows us to overview our data. (1) The eleven
independent variables explain about 50% of variance in the four
models. (2) In both languages and both age transitions previous
language proficiency in the three L2 skills explains the highest ratio of
variance, although the actual percentages vary, and reading and
writing are mostly responsible for this. (3) Inductive reasoning skills
explain higher ratios of variance for the younger age groups, as well as
for learners of English. (4) Students' parental background does not
seem to play a significant role in the case of German, unlike in the case
of English. (5) Grade point average and language mark explain a
different amount of variance in the four models: 2.4% and 5.0% in the
case of English, 7.6% and 0 in the case of German learners, and 6.0% and
1.4% for English learners, 3.8% and 0.5% for German learners,
respectively. (6) Attitudes towards language learning have significant
effects in the groups of German learners. In contrast, parents'
educational level seems to exert significant effects only in the groups
learning English. (7) The total variance explained is higher in the case
of the younger cohorts learning English (55.7%) and lower for the
older learners (47.2%). The pattern for learners of German is reverse:
41.1% for the younger groups and 53.2% for the more mature students.
(8) Variances for English were significant for more variables included
in the model than for German. (9) It is remarkable that the six
significant variables explain such a high proportion of variance in the
case of the older cohort of German learners. (10) Prior knowledge
predicts L2 proficiency to a different degree in the two target
216
B. Csapó, M. Nikolov / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
languages: whereas in the younger groups learning German only
reading proficiency is what really matters two years later, proficiency
in reading and writing in 10th grade is a very good predictor of how
successful learners are two years later. The picture is more balanced in
the case of English.
The analyses indicate that although there are some clear
tendencies, the patterns identified in the factors that determine
outcomes in L2 learning vary. The two target languages represent
different cases and the relationships between factors change with age.
pointed out, while taking a reading test it is possible to look back to
previous parts of the text, whereas in listening a higher demand is
placed on memory, thus, listening can be considered more cognitively
demanding than reading. Another point raised by our reviewer relates
to the fact that the inductive reasoning test required reading, which
could be another reason that correlations and regression coefficients
are higher with reading and writing than for listening (we are grateful
to our reviewer for these comments).
5.4. Relationships between L1 and L2 literacy skills
5. Discussion
5.1. The cognitive contribution to proficiency in L2
In the present study a validated inductive reasoning test was used
to examine the cognitive contribution to L2 proficiency in four age
groups and over time. Several findings have transpired.
(1) The cognitive contribution to L2 proficiency is significant but
not substantial, with various degrees of ratio in explained variance in
the two target languages and in the two age groups. (2) The
relationships between inductive reasoning skills and the three L2
skills consistently weaken between 6th and 12th grade. (3) Also,
participants' developmental level of inductive reasoning skills explains
a higher ratio of variance in the transition between 6th and 8th grades
in both L2s than in the older groups (10th and 12th grades), but the
ratio is higher for English, (4) the relationships are consistently
stronger for reading and writing than for listening comprehension,
(5) the relationships between the three L2 skills weaken over the
years, and (6) a similar tendency is found between L1 reading
comprehension and L2 skills, (7) all relationships are somewhat
stronger for English than for German. Finally, (8) the best predictor of
proficiency over two years is the level of proficiency in L2 assessed two
years earlier. Table 10 summarizes the data for the two languages and
the two transitions. These findings will be discussed in what follows.
5.2. The role of aptitude
In comparison to findings in another study on Hungarian students'
aptitude, the amount of variance explained by inductive reasoning is
relatively low (between 1.3 and 7.7), but the results make sense. The
second study involved a convenience sample of 419 sixth graders
studying English (Kiss & Nikolov, 2005). Although learners of German
did not participate, the findings are relevant for the youngest age
group. Language learning aptitude explained 22% of the variance in
English language performances, whereas motivation (an index was
applied on a number of motivational items) also had a significant
contribution (8%). Besides these two variables, marks in English (17%),
and the length of exposure (8.5%) explained a total of 55.5% of the
variation. Correlations on the level of individual learners showed a
strong relationship between aptitude and English scores (0.627).
These findings are in line with the outcomes of our analyses; the
MLAT-based aptitude test obviously taps into a wider range of
cognitive and linguistic skills than the inductive reasoning test;
hence, both the correlation and the explained variance were higher.
5.3. Relationships between L2 skills
Our database shows consistently stronger relationships between
L2 reading and L2 writing than between these and L2 listening
comprehension. Reading and writing are obviously interrelated
literacy skills, whereas listening comprehension is not and it is often
seen as the least academic of these skills: reading and writing are
cognitively more demanding. This is in line with Cummins' (1991)
distinction between cognitive academic language proficiency and
basic interpersonal communication skills: listening comprehension
tests tap into the latter. However, as one of our anonymous reviewers
The relationship between literacy skills in L1 and L2 also deserve
special attention. As was shown in Tables 2–5, it is not only
correlations between L2 skills that tend to decrease with age,
indicating that skills become less interdependent as they develop
over time. A similar tendency was found between reading comprehension in L1 and all three skills in L2. These findings show that
learners at lower levels of proficiency rely more on their general
skills; as they gain proficiency in the L2, their language skills become
gradually more independent from both cognitive and L1 skills. This
finding is in harmony with results of other educational research on
Hungarian students' school achievements (Csapó, 1998, 2002), as
well as with findings in bilingual education (Cummins, 1991) and in
studies on the assessment of reading comprehension in L1 and L2.
Obviously, the linguistic and literacy knowledge and skills students
have learned in their L1 bear on the learning of L2 involving, for
example, knowledge of how to approach a text and background
knowledge of the world. The problem can be worded slightly
differently: Is reading in L2 a language problem or a reading problem
(Alderson, 1984)? It is clear from the literature that L2 knowledge
and reading knowledge interact, and in L2 reading comprehension L2
proficiency is a more important factor than L1 reading ability
(Alderson, 2000, p. 23). Our findings are in line with this: as learners'
L2 proficiency develops over years, L2 reading comprehension
gradually becomes less dependent on L1 reading, and shows stronger
relationships with other L2 skills.
5.5. The role of L1
As for the relationship between L1 and L2, it is reasonable to
assume that reading in a L1 requires less conscious knowledge,
whereas in a foreign language learners rely more on their conscious
knowledge and monitor their performance. On the other hand, a
higher level of general intellectual skills may facilitate constructing
meaning of a text in an L2. The processes of induction may be similar
to those of meaning making.
Another issue with implications for language teaching methodology also deserves discussion. As findings concerning the relationship
between L1 and L2 show, performances in L1 and L2 reading
comprehension are less strongly related than those between foreign
language skills. This outcome shows that L1 and L2 develop quite
independently from one another despite extensive uses of translation
and contrastive analysis in Hungarian classrooms (also documented in
questionnaire data in the present study, see Nikolov, 2003).
Finally, a linguistic argument needs to be mentioned in connection
with the cognitive variable and the L1. Many language teachers as well
as lay people assume that English is easier to master than German and
a lower level of fluency is more easily available in English than in
German, as the latter is seen as cognitively more demanding because
of its more complex morphology. The Hungarian language is not
related to either of the two target languages and its morphology is
complex indeed. The present study shows that a higher ratio of
variance is explained by the cognitive variable for learners of English
than for German, and the ratio in the older groups is lower. These two
findings could be interpreted as counter-evidence to the above
assumptions, but obviously further research is necessary.
B. Csapó, M. Nikolov / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
5.6. Younger versus older learners
Results concerning relationships between younger and older
groups in the two target languages present an exciting point of
departure, as higher ratios of variance are explained by inductive
reasoning skills for the younger age groups (Table 10). The literature
on the age factor (e.g., Nikolov & Mihaljevic-Djigunovic, 2006;
Singleton & Ryan, 2004) and studies comparing early and later start
foreign language programs (e.g., García Mayo & García Lecumberri,
2003; Muñoz, 2006; Nikolov, 2000) unanimously claim that younger
learners are characterized by implicit language learning, memory
skills and formulaic chunks, whereas older learners apply a rule-based
analytic system. This may be the explanation why a larger ratio of
variance is explained in the transition between 6th and 8th graders' L2
proficiency than in the case of the older cohorts. A higher level of
cognitive skills at an earlier age is a better predictor of performances
two years later than in the high-school cohorts in which less variation
characterizes participants in the study.
As to why a higher ratio of variance is explained in the case of
English than German, the most probable reason is that, as is shown in
Table 10, other data characterizing younger learners of English are
consistently higher than those of their peers learning German. Their
intended level of proficiency and language learning plans, both
reflecting awareness and reasoning skills, in English explain 2.6 and
3.2%, respectively, whereas the data are not significant for learners of
German. On the other hand, attitudes, an affective variable, explain
2.0% of variance in the case of younger learners of German, but no
significant relationship characterizes learners of English. It is also
remarkable that two out of the three L2 skills show very different
patterns for younger learners of English than for their peers studying
German. No significant data were found for writing and listening skills
for the latter, whereas 7.5 and 4.2% of variance is explained by the level
of these skills in 6th grade in English. In addition to these, parents'
education explains quite a large portion of variance in both age
transitions of English learners (3.3; 2.2), but the data are not
significant for either groups of German learners. These trends show
more random variation in data for learners of German.
5.7. Other factors contributing to L2 proficiency
As for the differences in the cognitive contribution between
learners of English and German, it is important to point out that in all
grades learners of English had slightly but significantly better
inductive reasoning skills, and their performances were significantly
higher than those of their peers learning German (Csapó & Nikolov,
2002). This latter finding is in harmony with a nation-wide follow-up
study conducted a year later (Nikolov & Józsa, 2006). The first point
may partly explain the second one, but learners' inductive reasoning
skills interact with other factors. Language learning attitudes and
motivation, as well as parents' level of education, were found to be
more favorable in the case of learners of English than for students
studying German (Nikolov, 2003). Also, they tended to achieve better
grade point averages and marks in the L2 (Csapó & Nikolov, 2002).
Thus, more favorable school feedback may increase and help maintain
their language learning motivation to a greater extent. The perceived
status of English as a more prestigious lingua franca (Dörnyei et al.,
2006) may boost learners' attitudes and motivation, whereas learners
of German may feel that their language is less in demand.
6. Conclusion
The present study set out to examine the cognitive contribution to
L2 proficiency in four different age groups and over a period of two
years. As has been shown, over time learners' characteristics mediate
family and contextual variables and educational practices in complex
ways. In the regression analyses eleven variables explain about 50% of
217
variance in the models, but fewer variables exert a significant
influence on outcomes in the case of German than in the case of
English. In the younger age groups inductive reasoning skills explain
larger portions of the variance, and the relationships between the
cognitive variable, L1 reading, and other factors are stronger than in
the case of older learners. As an effect of maturation and language
development, the relationships between L2 skills weaken. Reading
comprehension and writing skills tend to be more strongly related to
one another, as well as to cognitive skills and L1 reading, than listening
comprehension indicating that L2 literacy skills are cognitively more
demanding than aural skills. The best predictor of L2 proficiency after
two years of study is prior level of proficiency, more specifically
reading comprehension and writing in L2.
The issue of the extent to which cognitive skills and prior
knowledge predict success in learning English and German over
time has important implications for teaching. Language teachers often
complain that students' level of proficiency when they start teaching
them is below their expected level. One wonders how teachers in
upper grades rely on what students bring with them and how
efficiently they scaffold their learning based on what they can do at
the time of transition. These questions address important issues
beyond our study, as according to a recent survey, two thirds of
students in secondary schools start their L2 study either in a new
language or as false beginners (Vágó, 2007). An equally important
issue concerns how teachers adjust their methodology to learners'
abilities. These questions need further enquiries.
Acknowledgements
The language assessment projects were supported by the Hungarian Ministry of Education and carried out by the Research Group on
the Development of Competencies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
(MTA-SZTE Képességkutató Csoport).
The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for the
insightful and helpful comments and suggestions.
References
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language
problem? In J. C. Alderson, & U. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language
(pp. 122–135). New York: Longman.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andor, M. (2000). A nyelvtudás szociális háttere [Social background to language
knowledge]. Educatio, 9(4), 717–728.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In J. Richards,
& J. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 21–43). London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Carroll, J. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. In T.
Parry, & C. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 1–29). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csapó, B. (1997). The development of inductive reasoning: Cross-sectional assessments
in an educational context. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20(4),
609–626.
Csapó, B. (Ed.). (1998). Az iskolai tudás [School knowledge] Budapest: Osiris.
Csapó, B. (2001). Az induktív gondolkodás fejlődésének elemzése országos reprezentatív felmérés alapján [An analysis of the development of inductive reasoning skills
based on a study involving a nation-wide representative sample]. Magyar Pedagógia,
3, sz. 373–391.
Csapó, B. (Ed.). (2002). Az iskolai műveltség [School literacy] Budapest: Osiris.
Csapó, B., & Nikolov, M. (2001, July). Hungarian students' performances on English and
German tests. Paper presented at the European Language Testing in a Global
Context Conference. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Csapó, B., & Nikolov, M., (2002, April). The relationship between students' foreign
language achievement and general thinking skills. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, U. S. A.
218
B. Csapó, M. Nikolov / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 209–218
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in
bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children
(pp. 70–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. New York: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes and
globalization: A Hungarian perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2002). Individual differences in second language learning.
In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fekete, H., Major, É., & Nikolov, M. (Eds.). (1999). English language education in
Hungary: A baseline study Budapest: British Council.
García Mayo, M. P., & García Lecumberri, M. L. (2003). Age and the acquisition of English
as a foreign language Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1992). A student's contributions to second language
learning. Part I: Cognitive variables. Language Teaching, 25, 211–220.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student's contributions to second-language
learning. Part 2: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1–11.
Grigorienko, E. L., Sternberg, J. R., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory-based approach to
the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test.
The Modern Language Journal, 84, 390–405.
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in
classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
19(4), 379–400.
Kiss, Cs., & Nikolov, M. (2005). Preparing, piloting and validating an instrument to
measure young learners' aptitude. Language Learning, 55, 99–150.
Klauer, K.J., (1997, August). Enhancing learning and cognitive ability through a training
of inductive reasoning. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on
Learning and Instruction, Athens, Greece.
Klauer, K. J. (1999). On the impact of inductive reasoning on the acquisition of abstract
generic knowledge with elementary school and with learning disabled children.
Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 46(1), 7–28.
Klauer, K. J., & Phye, G. D. (2008). Inductive reasoning: A training approach. Review of
Educational Research, 78(1), 85–123.
Klauer, K. J., Willmes, K., & Phye, G. D. (2002). Inducing inductive reasoning: Does it
transfer to fluid intelligence? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 1–25.
McDonough, S. H. (1999). Learner strategies. Language Teaching, 32, 1–18.
Medgyes, P., & Miklósy, K. (2000). The language situation in Hungary. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 1(2), 148–242.
Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: the BAF project. In:
Age and the rate of foreign language learning Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Nikolov, M. (1999). Classroom observation project. In H. Fekete, É. Major, & M. Nikolov
(Eds.), English language education in Hungary: A baseline study (pp. 221–246).
Budapest: British Council.
Nikolov, M. (2000). Research into early second language acquisition. In J. Moon, & M.
Nikolov (Eds.), Research into teaching English to young learners: International
perspectives (pp. 7–43). Pécs: University Press Pécs.
Nikolov, M. (2003). Angolul és németül tanuló diákok nyelvtanulási attitűdje és
motivációja [Attitudes and motivation of learners of English and German]. Iskolakultúra, 13(8), 61–73.
Nikolov, M., & Csapó, B., (2002, April). Twelve-year-olds' attitudes towards classroom
activities and their performances on tests of English and German as a foreign
language. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguists Annual
Conference, Salt Lake City, U. S. A.
Nikolov, M., & Józsa, K. (2006). Relationships between language achievements in
English and German and classroom-related variables. In M. Nikolov, & J. Horváth
(Eds.), UPRT 2006: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics (pp. 197–224).
Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport.
Nikolov, M., & Mihaljevic-Djigunovic, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second
language acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 26, 234–260.
Ottó, I. (1996). Language aptitude testing: Unveiling the mystery. Novelty, 3(3), 6–20.
Ottó, I., & Nikolov, M. (2003). Magyar felsőoktatási intézmények elsőéves hallgatóinak
nyelvérzéke [Language learning aptitude of Hungarian first-year university
students]. Iskolakultúra, 13(6–7), 34–44.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. (1993). Second language research on individual differences.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188–205.
Parry, T., & Stansfield, C. (Eds.). (1990). Language aptitude reconsidered Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1982). Analyzing aptitudes for learning: Inductive reasoning.
In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 269–345). Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Resing, W. C. M. (1993). Measuring inductive reasoning skills: The construction of a learning
potential test. In J. H. M. Hammers, K. Sijstma, & A. J. J. Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning
potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological and practical issues (pp. 219–242).
Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A framework for
research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed
language learning (pp. 113–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ropo, E. (1987). Skills for learning: A review of studies on inductive reasoning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 31, 31–39.
Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor, (2nd edition)
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 13, 275–298.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual
differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90–111.
Spolsky, B. (2000). Language motivation revisited. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 157–169.
Sternberg, R. (2002). The theory of successful intelligence and its implications for
language aptitude testing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed
language learning (pp. 13–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second
language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
4, 105–122.
Vágó, I. (2007). Nyelvtanulási utak Magyarországon [Language learning paths in
Hungary]. In I. Vágó (Ed.), Fókuszban a nyelvtanulás (pp. 137–174). Budapest:
Oktatáskutató és Fejlesztő Intézet.