Investigating a Hungarian Language Learning Aptitude Test with ...

test-takers can study a list of 24 Swahili and Hungarian word pairs for five minutes,and are then given 20 Swahili words, and have to choose the correct Hungarianequivalent of these words from five alternatives.The administration of the test takes 60 minutes. To increase the reliability ofthe test, the instructions for the learners are recorded on a CD. The examiners’ taskis to distribute the MENYÉT booklets, start the CD player, and make sure that thetestees follow the instructions.Thinking aloudVerbal reports on thinking have a long and controversial tradition in psychology(Ericsson, 1988). At the end of the 19th century it was considered the principalmethod to examine mental processes. Initially researchers used trained participants.However, the results these various groups of scientists came up with weredivisive, which then contributed to the decline of introspection. Later some (Claparede,1934; Duncker, 1945 cited in Ericsson, 1988 p. 296) tried to revive thismethod by employing “naive subjects” to eliminate the problem of biased participants,but they failed to do so. By the 1970’s when information processing gainedground in psychology verbal reports on thinking took off again (Ericsson, 1988).Think-aloud protocols were mainly used to study problem-solving mechanisms.However, researchers still had to face their predecessors’ problem: giving participantsinstructions to report on their thoughts might change their performance andconsequently the underlying cognitive processes they meant to study (Ericsson,1988).After reviewing the literature on verbal reports on thinking Ericsson andSimon (1980, 1984 cited in Ericsson, 1988, p. 296) found that much of the controversycould be explained by the fact that in these studies introspection and verbalreports on thinking were often treated as synonyms, though these were two differentapproaches. Whereas introspection did generate debates among researchers,verbal report was a widely accepted and acknowledged methodology. Ericssonand Simon (1980, 1984 cited in Ericsson, 1988 p. 296) defined the procedure ofthe verbal report that could elicit valid data on the cognitive processes being studiedand proposed (cited in Ericsson, 2002 p. 983) that the nearest link betweenthinking and verbal reports could be found when the participants were asked todo the task and simultaneously verbalize their thoughts, i.e. to think aloud. Accordingto Ericsson (1988), with the help of think-alouds thoughts generated in theshort-term memory can be elicited, and as all cognitive processes go throughshort-term memory, the participants can report on their conscious thoughts at thetime they are processed. However, thoughts that are already in the long-termmemory need to be brought into attention if they are to be verbalised.Hild, G. Investigating a Hungarian language learning aptitude test with think-aloud protocol 257

Pilot studyI piloted the procedure of using MENYÉT and think-aloud protocol simultaneouslywith one of my close acquaintances. Gábor is a 37-year-old scientist. Helearned Russian at primary and secondary school. He started learning English insecondary school and continued it until the third year of the medical university.He also attended French and German private lessons for a year. He has worked inthe USA and England and at present he uses English in his work regularly. Theadministration of the test took place in my home. Before the test I told him thatMENYÉT measured his language learning aptitude, and he was supposed to sayout loud what he was thinking of while doing the test. During the pilot study Ifocused on the following questions:1. Is the original time frame of MENYÉT sufficient for the participant to solve theLanguage analysis component and report on his thoughts concurrently?2. How much training is necessary for the participant to be able to apply thinkaloudprotocol?Concerning the first question, the pilot study verified that 15 minutes was enoughfor the participant to do the Language analysis component and concurrently reporton what he was thinking of.My intention was that in the main study after explaining to participants thatthey were supposed to say out loud what they were thinking of while doing thetest I was not going to provide them with any further training. My assumptionwas that this task could be easily accomplished after appropriate instructions andI did not want to take up more of my participants’ free time than necessary. Thepilot study proved that prior practice was not needed for completing the Languageanalysis part and thinking aloud concurrently.I piloted a questionnaire I gave the participants three weeks after they took thetest (Appendix B). I asked Gábor to fill it out and comment on it. I was interested ifthe questions were easy to understand. Gábor made only a few suggestions. Inquestions 8 and 9, which inquire about the easiest and the most difficult components,and how they tried to solve them, he recommended that I should also namethe four components, and provide a copy of MENYÉT along with the questionnaireto refresh the participants’ memory. I considered these ideas relevant, and Imade the necessary changes.Research framework and objectives of the main studyThe present research is embedded in the constructivist knowledge claim. Ratherthan starting with concrete, carefully narrowed hypotheses and relying on objectivemeasures and data I approached the research topic with an open mind, madeobservations at close range and interpreted the results with the help of the participants’views and the researcher’s experiences (Creswell, 2004). As far as the researchapproach is concerned, I followed the traditions of the qualitative paradigm258 UPRT 2007: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics

(Mackey & Gass, 2005). Consequently, I did not utilise statistical procedures, but athorough description of the data. Instead of justifying a particular hypothesis I letthe questions and the patterns emerge as the research progressed. The presentstudy is a case study; therefore, my aim was not to generalize the findings, but toshed light on a particular phenomenon of foreign language learning by observingtwo learners. I elicited the data with the help of think-aloud protocol, which is anintrospective means typically used for investigating cognitive processes.I focused on the second subtest of MENYÉT, the Language analysis component.In this task the testee has to choose the correct artificial language translationof Hungarian sentences from four alternatives with the help of a group of samplesentences and words written in this language and their Hungarian equivalents. Inother words, he is supposed to find the right answer by extrapolating it from thesample sentences he is provided with. One of the objectives of the study was toassess the response validity of the component: to find out what reasoning the participantsengaged in while responding to the items. If they acted according to expectationsand applied inductive reasoning skills, the response validity of thiscomponent can be confirmed. However, if the test-takers relied on other strategies,such as guessing, which is often the case in multiple-choice tests, or other types ofreasoning, the response validity is challenged. My other objective was to investigateand interpret the differences that could be observed in the case of the twoparticipants while completing the task.ParticipantsAccording to Li (2004, p. 305), the trustworthiness of a study using think-aloudprotocol can be increased by selecting samples purposefully, applying volunteers,guaranteeing their anonymity, and reducing the distortion caused by the presenceof the researcher by “prolonged engagement”. For these reasons I asked two of myprivate EFL students to take part in my study. As they are my private studentsthey are not dependent on my good intentions in any way; consequently, theirparticipation can be considered voluntary. As the description below shows, theywere chosen because of their different educational background and similar age. Ialso informed them beforehand that their anonymity would be guaranteed. As Ihave known both of them for more than one year, it can be presumed that mypresence during the research intimidated them as little as possible.Kata is a 32-year-old dentist. She has been attending my classes for 18 months.Previously, she learned English for four years at university. At secondary schoolshe attended a special German as a foreign language class and passed an intermediate-levellanguage exam in German. She also learned Russian for five years atschool. In her self-report she states that she was good at all the school subjects,even at the ones she did not like, which were chemistry and geography.The other participant is a 35-year-old carpenter. András has been running hisown business making and selling wardrobes for ten years. He has been learningEnglish for one year. At primary school he learned Russian for eight years. In thefirst four years he also learned German, but he gave it up when he had the chance.Hild, G. Investigating a Hungarian language learning aptitude test with think-aloud protocol 259

At the vocational secondary school he did not have foreign language lessons. Atschool he was good at drawing and physics, but he did not like history and literature,because he had to mug too many dates and names, and these lessons werenot “practical enough”.InstrumentsDuring the investigation four instruments were used:1. MENYÉT booklets that contained four tests and a separate answer sheet. Thenecessary instructions for the participants were played on a CD player.2. The participants’ thoughts during the test were elicited with the help of thinkaloudprotocol. They were asked to say aloud what they were thinking ofwhile doing the tests, which was recorded on a digital dictaphone (Gass &Mackey, 2000).3. After finishing the test the participants were given a data sheet, which I filledout with them taking notes of the remarks they made. The sheet containedopen questions on their age, qualification, profession, foreign language knowledge,and the school subjects they were good and bad at (Appendix A).4. For the purpose of triangulation three weeks after taking the test the participantswere also given a questionnaire in connection with MENYÉT and languagelearning aptitude (Appendix B).ProceduresIn Li’s view (2004), to safeguard the trustworthiness of a qualitative study usingthink-aloud it is advisable to conduct the research in an environment where theparticipants can feel relaxed. For this reason in both cases the administration of thetest took place in my home, where we always meet, before one of our lessons. Dueto the familiar environment and face they both seemed comfortable and eager tosee and take the test we had talked about. Kata was a little bit more nervous,which I think can be attributed to her habitual test-anxiety that is the residue ofher long medical studies. András, as usual, was very relaxed.Since the pilot study demonstrated that it was not necessary for the participantsto practice thinking aloud I only explained to them, upon request and rightbefore the test, that they would need to report on their thoughts constantly whiletaking the test, and that I was going to record them on a digital dictaphone.Three weeks after the administration of the test I emailed the participants aquestionnaire in connection with MENYÉT and language learning aptitude (AppendixB). For the purpose of the present study only the following questions of thequestionnaire were focused on: which was the easiest and the most difficult task ofMENYÉT and why; and how did they try to solve the tasks. The extracts from thetranscripts are translated from Hungarian into English. In the extracts the English260 UPRT 2007: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics

Extract 4It is not convenient if I am saying what I am thinking. My time is runningout if I am thinking aloud.In all the items András had time to attend to he translated the sentences by extrapolatingthe necessary linguistic patterns and forms from the sample sentencesand words, and sometimes from the previous items:Extract 5The dog chased the cat. (item 2) Which is the expression of kau meud biwhere kau is the dog, and here we are not talking about chasing butwatching, which is so, so that’s why I think the answer to question two iskau meud so.In Extract 5, as this was in the beginning and he was still not comfortable withthinking aloud, András had already found the response by the time I asked him toreport on his thoughts. In items 2 and 3 he ignored the fact that the sentences werein the past tense. In item 4 he realised that the only difference between this and theprevious sentence was the tense. Although he extrapolated how to form the pasttense successfully, and realized that he had done something incorrectly in the previousitems, he did not go back and correct his former responses accordingly, buthe said: “I might have screwed the whole thing?” However, subsequently he managedto indicate the past and the present tense appropriately.One of the grammar rules of this artificial language the test-takers are supposedto extrapolate from the sample sentences is that when both the subject andthe object, which stand directly next to each other in sentences, are pronouns, theseparate words merge into one word, and the last letter of the objective pronoun isomitted. When András first came across this unique grammatical structure in item5 he sounded surprised: “Oh, my god.” Nevertheless, he managed to find the correctanswer because after applying the linguistic patterns and formulas he hadpreviously deduced, only one possible answer was left, but he was still not sure ofhimself:Extract 6I am checking the expressions on the above list. (8 sec) You is xa, us is pa,watch is so (.) Xa (.) Pa (.) Xa (.) Xa (.) Pso. I think so. I don’t know. (...)No. It just doesn’t add up. But I have no other idea.Subsequently, when this formula was necessary to call for (items 7, 8 and 9), heused it appropriately without hesitation, even when a distracter was similar to thecorrect one, but ignored the rule of the omission of the objective pronouns’ lastletter (item 11) among the four alternatives. In item 10 a new grammatical structure,the negative appeared. At first he was taken aback (“By golly!”), but afterstudying the sample sentences for a while he could extrapolate and apply the rulein this and the following sentences. Within the allocated 15 minutes András couldattend to twelve out of 20 items, out of which he managed to solve 10 correctly.262 UPRT 2007: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics

Kata had no difficulty with the sample item provided before the task itself. Shepaid close attention to the instructions on the CD player, and did not seem lost atall in the beginning. Without any hesitation she started off by reading and studyingthe sample sentences thoroughly for a while. As the following extract recordedwhile Kata was studying the sample sentences and words shows, she tried to findand extrapolate the linguistic patterns even before she began solving the items:Extract 7Well, then there is kau, meu, kau meu bo, kau meud bi, so, ciu, pa, xa, pasaumeud bo, (..) Pa meud bo, paxbo (.) Pa meud bor. Once again to see what iswhat. (.) I don’t know what is so ciu. Pa xa pasau meud bo pa meud pa (..)Our dog chases the cat. How did this come here? Kau became pasau? (.)We chase the cat. (..) Pa meud bo we chase, we paxbo (.) Meud bor We don’tchase. Well, let’s see.Consequently, in the first four and the sixth items, which were similar to the sampleitem and contained only the problem of the past tense that she could quicklyattend to, Kata’s information processing was so fast she did not have time to thinkaloud. She only said the responses out loud. In items 5, 7, 9-12, 17 and 19 shequickly extrapolated the necessary linguistic patterns and formulas from the samplesentences, or used the ones she had already deduced during the previousitems:Extract 8You don’t watch the cat (item 10). How was the negative? (.) Oh, I see,there is only an i at the end. Right. Then you is xa (..) Watch is in the present,so it is (..) and meud, because we need an accusative, so this is B.As she also stated after completing Language analysis (“Who does it? When doeshe do it? Is it in the negative? And you can exclude a whole lot of alternatives, andyou can decide much faster what it starts with, and in this way, half, or almost halfof the cases drop out”), when she came across linguistic structures she had previouslyused a few times or proved easy (items 8, 13, 14, 18 and 20), she appliedthose first to exclude as many alternatives as possible, and then she could come upwith the response more quickly:Extract 9We didn’t chase you. (item 14) Then it starts with pa, didn’t chase so it is birbecause it is in the past, then B.When she faced a complicated rule, such as the possessive case in item 16, she alsoapplied extrapolation and exclusion simultaneously:Hild, G. Investigating a Hungarian language learning aptitude test with think-aloud protocol 263

Extract 10Your cat chases the mouse. (.) So where shall we write your dog (…) Well Ididn’t understand how to form somebody’s animal (…) kau became pasau.I don’t really understand this. Which item is this? 16th. Well, let’ssee. There must be mouse in it (.) And you, and it starts with xa (.) meubecame (.) xaseu (..) ciud bo. Then it is B.Here Kata probably used the information she managed to deduce while studyingthe sample sentences in the beginning (“Our dog chases the cat. How did this comehere? kau became pasau?”), namely that, similarly to English, in this artificial languagethe possessive pronoun comes first, followed by the possession. With thisrule at hand the only possible alternatives that could be left were B and perhaps A.However, for obvious reasons A can be excluded very quickly. Kata managed tocomplete the Language analysis component in eight minutes, so she could checkall her responses again. She was very thorough this time, too. She did not find anymistakes, because there were not any.In the questionnaire Kata stated that for her the easiest component was Languageanalysis. She could find the responses easily with the help of logic. Duringthe task she tried to find the artificial language equivalents of various Hungarianlinguistic formulas. Similarly, András considered this component the least difficult.As he claimed briefly, he used “logic” while completing the task.ConclusionAs the data gathered both with think-aloud protocol and the questionnaire reflectedduring the Language analysis component of MENYÉT, the participantsarrived at the answers by extrapolating, thus provided information on their languageaptitude and confirmed the response validity of this subtest. When theyfaced some difficulties, they started off by translating what they could, and thenexcluded options, which still required the ability of inferring, and thus, this strategyalso verified the response validity of the component. In real life the samestrategy proves successful when language learners understand only particularsegments of what they have been told and can guess the rest with the help of thecontext. In this case study, the participants have come from dissimilar educationalenvironments and possess different cognitive styles, which appear not to influencethe response validity of the Language analysis component and the strategies theyused to find the responses. Since a case study is not suitable for allowing generalization,further investigations are needed to support this finding.András seemed uncomfortable and lost in the position of a test-taker. He wasunsure of himself and the way he was to carry out the instructions. He often askedme for approval of his actions. In contrast to Kata and Gábor, the participant of thepilot study, it was not enough for András to be asked to verbalise his thoughts; heseemed to lack the opportunity to practice it. At the beginning of the test he didnot understand the idea of thinking aloud. As Wade (1990, cited in Young, 2005, p.25) contends, those who have a higher level of cognitive development are more264 UPRT 2007: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics

capable of reporting on their thoughts than those who have difficulty thinkingabout their own thoughts, and thus verbalising them. This does not mean that thelatter group will perform at a lower level, so researchers must be on their guard toavoid underestimating them. After understanding what thinking-aloud meant,András managed to act accordingly, but had to be reminded to do so frequently.Within the allocated time he could attend to 60% of the items. However, in 83%ofthe items that he managed to attend to, he could find the correct response. Had hebeen given more time, which could have been justified by the extra cognitive loadinflicted upon by the additional task of verbalising his thoughts, András wouldhave been able to achieve a better score. Nevertheless, as both participants had thesame amount of time to do the same task, their performance can still be compared.Therefore, we can say that András’s performance was slower and consequentlyweaker, which can be explained by his limited language learning and test-takingexperience and his difficulty in thinking aloud. Whether any of these factors has adirect effect on inductive language learning ability, a component of aptitude,needs to be investigated further. Considering the definition and the characteristicsof aptitude, none of them should count.In contrast, Kata seemed to be a confident examinee: she did not need time tofind out how to go about the task and had no problem verbalising her thoughts. Inher case what Ericsson (1988) calls the elimination of intermediate steps could beobserved in some items. This means that due to extensive practice, the intermediatethoughts of information processing do not enter attention any more, that is,they become unconscious, and consequently, unreportable. On such occasions theresult of the processing is the only data that can be elicited. In Kata’s case the periodof practice was fairly short.In the second part of the component Kata applied exclusion as often as possibleto lessen the cognitive load. After quickly excluding as many options as possiblewith the help of previously extrapolated and practiced linguistic rules, sheonly needed to attend to those more complex linguistic patterns that were crucialto reduce the number of possible options to one; however, sometimes mere eliminationwas enough. With the help of this technique, probably developed duringher extensive language learning and test-taking experience, Kata managed tocomplete the task without any mistakes within half the time allocated. Whetherthis superb score and her excellent performance during the investigation haveanything to do with her extensive language and other learning experience, andadmittedly good school achievements are to be researched further.Lessons and issues to think aboutAlthough the pilot study supported the idea that prior practice was not necessaryto be able to complete a task and think aloud concurrently, the case of Andrásproved the opposite. The reason for this might be that unlike András, and similarlyto Kata, the participant of the pilot study, Gábor, has a more academic educationalbackground, which seems to make verbalizing how and what we are thinkingmore natural. However, for those who have been less involved in cognitivelyHild, G. Investigating a Hungarian language learning aptitude test with think-aloud protocol 265

demanding situations, thinking aloud might appear to be so uncommon that atfirst they simply cannot imagine what they are supposed to do, thus, as Young(2005) also suggests, need a demonstration and some practice. Whether this phenomenoncan really be associated with educational profile needs to be investigatedfurther.Ericsson (2002) states that although thinking aloud does not alter the accuracyof performance, it does extend the time necessary to carry out a problem-solvingtask. In the present study the participants had to complete the Language analysiscomponent of MENYÉT and report their thoughts in the same amount of time asthose who only take the test. The reason for this was that I intended to examinethe response validity of this component, which in my view requires participants tofollow the original procedures of the test strictly. However, if the aim is to explorethe cognitive processes that operate while completing, timing should not be a factor.ReferencesCarroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. Form A. Manual+ Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Caroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. InK. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude(pp. 83-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Carroll, J. B. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: then and now.In T. S. Parry & C. W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 11-29). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Creswell, J. W. (2004). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixedmethods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.De Graaf, R. (1997). Differential effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition.The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.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.Ericsson, K.A. (1988). Concurrent verbal reports on text comprehension. Text, 8 (4),295-325.Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Towards a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of nonverbalexperience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowingeffect within the theoretical framework of protocol analysis. Applied CognitivePsychology, 16, 981-987.Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Li, D. (2004). Trustworthiness of think-aloud protocols in the study of translationprocesses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14 (3), 301-313.Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.266 UPRT 2007: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics

Ottó, I. (1996). Language aptitude testing: Unveiling the mystery. Novelty, 3 (3), 6-20.Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: HarperCollins.Robinson, P. (1995). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental,rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18, 27-67.Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A frameworkfor research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differencesand instructed language learning (pp. 113-136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: EdwardArnold.Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298.Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individualdifferences and instructed language learning (pp. 113-136). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90-111.Young, K. A. (2005). Direct from the source: the value of “think-aloud” data inunderstanding learning. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 6 (1), 19-33.Hild, G. Investigating a Hungarian language learning aptitude test with think-aloud protocol 267

Appendix A1. Életkora?2. Legmagasabb iskolai végzettsége? (A helyes választ kérem, karikázza be.)8 általános szakmunkásképzı érettségi technikum egyetem/fıiskola3. Végzettsége4. Jelenlegi munkaköre, vagy elfoglaltsága? (Ha tanul, kérem, írja le hol és mit tanul.)5. Tanul-e vagy tanult-e idegen nyelvet? Igen Nem6. Ha igen, milyen nyelvet és hány évig tanult, és van-e nyelvvizsgája?Nyelv Évek száma Nyelvvizsga típusa7. Az iskolai tanulmányai során milyen tantárgyak mentek önnek könnyen, és milyentantárgyak nehezebben. (Kérem, soroljon fel néhányat.)Nehezebben:Könnyebben:Neve:Appendix BKérlek, válaszolj az alábbi kérdésekre. Mindegyik válasz elé írjad oda annak a kérdésnek aszámát, amelyre válaszolsz. Mindegyik kérdésre próbálj meg válaszolni. Segítségedet elıreis köszönöm.1. Szerinted mi kell a sikeres nyelvtanuláshoz?2. Szerinted mi a nyelvérzék?3. Van olyan ismerısöd, barátod vagy családtagod, akinek jó a nyelvérzéke? Ha igen,miért gondolod, hogy neki jó a nyelvérzéke?4. Van olyan ismerısöd, barátod vagy családtagod, akinek rossz a nyelvérzéke? Haigen, miért gondolod, hogy neki rossz a nyelvérzéke?5. Mi a véleményed a saját nyelvérzékedrıl?6. Szerinted mit mér a MENYÉT?7. Mi a véleményed a MENYÉT-rıl?8. Melyek volt(ak) a legkönnyebb és a legnehezebb feladat(ok) számodra (Rejtızıhangok, Nyelvi elemzés, Szavak szerepe a mondatba vagy a Szótanulás, emlékeztetıüllásd. a mellékelt MENYÉT feladatsort)? Miért ezek volt(ak) a legkönnyebb éslegnehezebb feladat(ok)?9. Hogyan próbáltad megoldani a MENYÉT négy különbözı feladatát?• Rejtızı hangok:• Nyelvi elemzés:• Szavak szerepe a mondatban:• Szótanulás:268 UPRT 2007: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics