395 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 6 (3). 2016. 395-422 doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.3 http://www.ssllt.amu.edu.pl The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case of cognitive factors and personality Adriana Biedroń Pomeranian University, Słupsk, Poland adrianabiedron@wp.pl Mirosław Pawlak Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland State University of Applied Sciences, Konin, Poland pawlakmi@amu.edu.pl Abstract While a substantial body of empirical evidence has been accrued about the role of individual differences in second language acquisition, relatively little is still known about how factors of this kind can mediate the effects of instructional practices as well as how empirically-derived insights can inform foreign language pedagogy, both with respect to shaping certain variables and adjusting instruction to individual learner profiles. The present paper is an attempt to shed light on the interface be- tween research on individual difference factors and teaching practice, focusing upon variables which do not easily lend themselves to external manipulation, namely in- telligence, foreign language aptitude, working memory and personality, with the role of the last of these in language learning being admittedly the least obvious. In each case, the main research findings will briefly be outlined, their potential for in- forming instruction will be considered, and, in the final part, the caveats concerning practical applications of research on the variables in question will be spelled out. Keywords: individual differences; intelligence; foreign language aptitude; working memory; personality Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 396 1. Introduction There have recently been several attempts to relate the findings of research into individual difference (ID) variables in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) to everyday foreign language instruction,1 as superbly demonstrated, for example, in the book-length overviews by Gregersen and Macintyre (2014), or Williams, Mercer, and Ryan (2015), and pedagogical implications also tend to be included in volumes devoted to specific ID factors (e.g., Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014; Oxford, 2011). Nevertheless, there is a clear need to take stock of what has thus far been accomplished in this respect, bring together some of the loose threads, and address the question whether, to what extent and in what ways such research could inform classroom practices. With this in mind, the present paper, intended as the first in a sequence of two dedicated to the consideration of practical applications of empirical investigations into selected ID variables, focuses on factors which are believed to be relatively stable, or, at best, mallea- ble only to a minute degree in response to external manipulation, that is, intel- ligence, foreign language (FL) aptitude, working memory (WM) and personality. The conviction that these variables are by and large immune to pedagogical in- tervention originates in classical cognitive psychology, which views cognitive ID factors as latent traits, determined by genetic and environmental influences, with the contribution of the former having been much more thoroughly scruti- nized and much more firmly confirmed (Jensen, 1997; Plomin, 1997; Plomin & Deary, 2015). Research into these factors, which are crucial in the process of L2 learning, has a long tradition in SLA (see Dörnyei, 2005, 2009; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Ellis, 2008; Pawlak, 2012). By the same token, personality is also seen as a relatively stable and universal trait, determined by both genes and the envi- ronment (see McCrae & Costa, 2003), although its role in learning an FL is less obvious than, for example, that of aptitude. In what follows, first, general per- spectives on the status of cognitive ID variables and personality in language learning will be considered and the ways in which the interface between re- search and everyday teaching practice can be approached will be highlighted. This will be followed by a more detailed discussion of this interface in the case of the ID variables in question, and the paper will close with an evaluation of the extent to which research on IDs has succeeded in informing language peda- gogy as well as the consideration of the limitations of empirically-derived in- sights for successfully influencing language instruction in the classroom. 1 The terms second and foreign are used interchangeably in the present paper to refer to any language that an individual might be learning in addition to his or her mother tongue. The same caveat applies to the terms acquisition and learning, which are meant here to refer to the general process of gaining mastery of an additional language. The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 397 2. The role of cognitive factors and personality in SLA Although IDs are considered to be influential variables affecting both the pro- cess of second language learning and the outcomes of this process, their status, understood in terms of their contribution to the outcomes of FL learning, is var- ied, and so is the amount of research devoted to them. Generally speaking, it is possible to identify in SLA theory and research several key hypotheses concern- ing cognitive IDs and personality traits. They could be summarized as follows: 1. Most IDs are heterogeneous constructs, composed of several factors, en- tering into intricate interactions, both with each other and with the envi- ronment (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Robinson, 2002). The corollary of this characterization is that it would be unreasonable to assume that all the di- verse ID factors, also such that are hypothesized to be constitutive compo- nents of a given variable (e.g., phonemic coding ability in the case of FL ap- titude), can be put on a par with respect to their stability and trainability. 2. Different factors are relevant to different learning stages, skills and subsys- tems (cf. Robinson, 2002; Skehan, 2002), which means that learners can benefit from them to varying degrees under different instructional condi- tions, in various learning situations and while performing specific tasks in the classroom, also such that they are confronted with in the real world. 3. All the factors are in a constant flux, and they influence each other dy- namically, with the effect that, in line with the tenets of dynamic systems theory, they should be seen as constellations of variables rather that sin- gle entities (see Dörnyei, 2005, 2009, 2010; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2015; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). What logically follows is that, for example, FL aptitude cannot be considered in separation from, say, motivation, since they are bound to remain in con- stant, dynamic interaction. In fact, empirical evidence for the existence of such interdependencies has been provided by neuroscience. For example, the neurotransmitter dopamine has been found to affect such attributes and processes as WM, language learning motivation and learning rein- forcement, defossilisation, and the effectiveness of learning grammar (see e.g., Schumann, 2004; Wong, Morgan-Short, Ettlinger, & Zheng, 2012). Empathy, on the other hand, can be more relevant for pronunciation at- tainment at advanced stages of learning than WM (Hu et al., 2013). 4. Most people can succeed in FL learning, with success being interpreted in terms of the attainment of adequate levels of communicative ability, given that they manifest high motivation and have access to a conducive environment (e.g., copious opportunities for interaction in the target Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 398 language). Over the last several years, for example, evidence has accu- mulated that adept reliance on language learning strategies as well as self-motivation strategies can boost the effectiveness of the language learning process, even after the closure of critical or sensitive periods,2 regardless of whether such strategies have been recommended by spe- cialists, suggested by the teacher or developed by the learner himself or herself (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014; Moyer, 2013). Broadly speaking, two tendencies can be recognized with respect to the theory-practice nexus in research on ID factors: (a) a qualitative/quantitative change due to training, and (b) aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI). The former pertains in the main to WM, which is considered to be the most trainable of cog- nitive IDs (Söderqvist & Nutley, 2015). The latter embraces the application of com- pensatory or matching approaches, aimed at, respectively, compensating for learners’ weaknesses or adjusting instructional practices to their strengths, and it can be extended to other IDs, such as motivation, learning styles or learning strat- egies (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). In other words, even if some factors appear to be stable and their modification is hardly feasible, teachers have at their dis- posal an array of other possible pedagogic interventions, which might involve matching learners’ cognitive-affective profiles to instructional techniques, creat- ing varied assessment criteria for learners depending on the level of their FL apti- tude, raising students’ awareness with reference to their strengths and weak- nesses, or attempting to alter counter-productive, outcome-related attributions or beliefs (e.g., by changing causal ascription from lack of ability to lack of effort). These issues will be considered in more detail in the following sections in which the selected cognitive IDs and personality are dealt with separately. 3. Intelligence The factor that has been most thoroughly examined in cognitive and genetic psychology and at the same time is the least amenable to pedagogic interven- tion is intelligence. It should also be noted at the outset that the contribution of this variable to the processes and outcomes of L2 learning has largely remained on the sidelines of SLA research. Following Sasaki's (1996) and Skehan's (1998) suggestions, intelligence is believed to affect only analytical abilities and be of little relevance for success in language learning. Evidently, this reasoning is based on limited and outdated evidence from 20 years ago, when a two-factor 2 Even though the concept of the critical or sensitive period is debatable in the field of SLA (e.g., Singleton, 2014), many researchers (e.g., Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008; Long, 2013) provide a substantial body of empirical evidence to confirm its significance. The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 399 approach to intelligence (i.e., verbal vs. nonverbal) prevailed. Moreover, in west- ern education, which has been dominated by socialization theories (cf. Scarr, 1997), intelligence is a factor too often shamefully but at the same time conven- iently swept under the carpet. This is undeniably a major oversight as this is a powerful variable encompassing a multitude of other cognitive IDs, which them- selves correlate with one another. A contemporary definition of intelligence, of- fered by Plomin and Deary (2015), is as follows: Although there are many types of cognitive ability tests of individual differences, they almost all correlate substantially and positively; people with higher ability on one cognitive task tend to have higher ability on all of the others. Intelligence (more pre- cisely, general cognitive ability or g, as discovered and defined by Spearman in 1904) indexes this covariance, which accounts for about 40 per cent of the total variance when a battery of diverse cognitive tests is administered to a sample with a good range of cognitive ability . . . Intelligence is at the pinnacle of the hierarchical model of cognitive abilities that includes a middle level of group factors, such as the cogni- tive domains of verbal and spatial abilities and memory, and a third level of specific tests and their associated narrow cognitive skills. (p. 99) In view of such a characterization, an assumption that intelligence exerts no effect on adult FL learning outcomes becomes clearly untenable. Even though evidence has been mounting as to the heritability of this factor (cf. Plomin & Deary, 2015), there is still an ongoing debate in education between behavior-genetic theorists and socialization theorists (Scarr, 1997) concerning the persistent nature or nurture problem. Intelligence is undoubtedly not only the most often discussed ID (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997) but also such that arouses the most emotions. This is because, on the one hand, this factor is known to impinge on basically all aspects of life, including success in education and work, income, health, marriage and even a sense of happiness in life, but, on the other, it is also undemocratically distributed on account of the fact that it is for the most part genetically derived. The most radical genetic determinists, such as Jensen (1997), Plomin (1997), and Loehlin, Horn and Willerman (1997, the Texas Adoption Project) provide hard scientific data for the heritability of cognitive abilities. They claim that the heritability of the intelligence quotient (IQ) is approximately 70%, whereas other factors, such as socio-economic sta- tus, cultural background, parents’ education and occupation or the number of books in the home, factors which are emphasized by socialization theory, ac- count for no more than 10% of variation in intelligence (Jensen, 1997). Contrary to common assumptions, genetic effects increase rather than decrease with age, a phenomenon which is corroborated by a large body of evidence from twin, adop- tion and family studies. According to Plomin and Deary (2015), the heritability of Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 400 intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to approximately 80% in later life. Although the family environment does have a significant effect, this applies only to children and the impact gradually lessens at an older age, to finally be- come of minor importance in adulthood. These results derive mainly from twin studies and have now been confirmed by the first new quantitative genetic tech- nique, known as genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA), which is used to estimate genetic influence with the help of genome-wide genotypes in large samples of unrelated individuals (Plomin & Deary, 2015). What makes the situ- ation even less optimistic is the fact that the available evidence suggests that fluid IQ cannot be trained and improved (Jensen, 1997; Plomin & Deary, 2015). In accordance with the definition presented above, IQ is a general term which subsumes all other cognitive abilities, including those required for learning FLs, especially in instructional settings, and, therefore, all such abilities can be nat- urally expected to share the same characteristics as general IQ. From this perspec- tive, teachers, educators and learners have two possibilities: They can either ignore factors which are uncontrollable anyway or try to find evidence for their pliability. Socialization theorists have adopted a mixed approach (Ceci, 1996; Sternberg, 2002; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000). Drawing on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory and his concept of the zone of proximal development, they claim that cog- nitive factors are highly flexible, with social conditions playing a major role in the process of cognitive development. The first psychologist who applied this theory to instructed SLA was Sternberg (1997, 2002) in his triarchic theory of human intel- ligence, which posits a dynamic, interactive nature of cognitive abilities. In his view, expertise is far more important than natural ability and cognitive factors tend to be overestimated in education. A similar stance is embraced by Dweck (2006) and Mercer (2012), who emphasize the contribution of the social and cultural context to SLA over that of congenital cognitive factors. Yet another convincing argument advanced by socialization theorists is that only part of human potential can be sub- jected to measurement (Ceci, 1996). This is because we have no access to the whole possible potential of a person, which makes it impossible to offer an ulti- mate prediction of what that person would be able to do if he or she were provided with conducive environmental conditions. According to Ceci (1996), heritability co- efficients may be overestimated as they refer solely to the fulfilled genetic poten- tial. On these grounds, constructivists (cf. Williams & Burden, 1997) argue that the impact of the environment on cognitive development surpasses the impact of ge- netic variation. This approach can surely be considered as more optimistic than the behaviorist-genetic one, since it allows the possibility of effective pedagogic inter- vention aimed at modification of intelligence-related factors. Consequently, it should perhaps come as no surprise that it is preferred by many researchers and practitioners in the field of SLA (e.g., Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 401 In the field of education, Gardner’s (1983) model of multiple intelligences has become extremely widespread and influential. Gardner suggests that tradi- tional models of intelligence, assuming the existence of a general cognitive abil- ity, should be abandoned and replaced with a set of independent multiple intel- ligences. His theory aims at identifying individual profiles of natural abilities which can be further developed while the weaker areas can be improved upon. Although severely criticized by cognitive psychologists for lacking scientific va- lidity, this theory has gained immense popularity, particularly among educators and FL teachers. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that nowadays most re- searchers representing various approaches and schools of thought accept the fact that some ID factors are highly heritable but, at the same time, extreme, all- or-nothing positions are typically avoided. Rather than emphasizing arguments against the existence of cognitive differences between people, the discussion has been revolving around the issue of efficacious pedagogic intervention with an eye to compensating for weaknesses in cognitive functioning, as well as rais- ing awareness in this respect among both teachers and learners. 4. Foreign language aptitude A cognitive factor that has attracted considerable attention from SLA research- ers but has also generated a good deal of controversy is FL aptitude. This ID is a powerful variable, covering a number of cognitively-based learner differences, which explains the largest proportion of variation in the outcomes of FL learning among all IDs. FL aptitude is the strongest predictor of the rate of progress as well as high levels of achievement in learning an additional language after the closure of critical or sensitive periods (Doughty et al., 2010; Linck et al., 2013; Long, 2013). It is a complex, multi-faceted factor, which means that there is no single FL aptitude, but, rather, there exists a whole range of FL aptitudes which are included in the domain of cognitive IDs (see Abrahamson & Hyltenstam, 2008; Granena & Long, 2013; Robinson, 2002) and operate differently under various learning conditions. Thanks to major advances in the fields of SLA, cog- nitive psychology, genetics and neurolinguistics, the construct has been consid- erably updated and reconceptualized over the last two decades. The contemporary concept of FL aptitude is based on the classical defini- tion proposed by Carroll (1959, 1981). In Carroll’s model, FL aptitude is de- scribed as a latent, innate, relatively stable trait, which is distinct from motiva- tion and interest, and manifests itself only indirectly in the process of FL learning as well as in language performance. The construct includes four, fairly independ- ent, subcomponents, that is: phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, in- ductive language learning ability, and associative memory. While Carroll (1981) Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 402 considered FL aptitude to be relatively fixed, he did not exclude the possibility of its development and modifiability. He suggested that aptitude measures in part reflect some kind of achievement because they depend to some extent on past learning. Carroll’s view of the construct was restricted to the prediction of the rate of learning and did not pertain to the ultimate achievement in learning a FL. The four-component model of aptitude and the test constructed on its basis, the Mod- ern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT; Carroll & Sapon, 1959), were points of refer- ence for subsequent research endeavors in this area (Doughty, 2013; Doughty et al., 2010; Grigorenko, Sternberg, & Ehrman, 2000; Meara, 2005; Pimsleur, 1966; Robinson, 2002; Skehan, 1998; Tare et al., 2014). Recently, FL aptitude has been operationalized as a set of cognitive abili- ties, which can be approached from the perspective of psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology. Within this approach, two influential conceptualizations of FL aptitude can be recognized, those proposed by Skehan (1998, 2002) and Robinson (2002, 2007). In Skehan’s (1998) model, aptitude components are re- lated to consecutive stages of information processing in SLA. He decided to merge Carroll’s (1959) grammatical sensitivity and inductive language learning ability into language analytic ability, which is related to central processing. As regards phonetic coding ability and memory abilities, he saw them as corre- sponding to input processing, and output and fluency, respectively. An updated version of the model (Skehan, 2002) distinguishes four stages of SLA processing, namely noticing, patterning, controlling and lexicalizing. Robinson's (2002, 2007) model of FL aptitude consists of four aptitude complexes, including pri- mary and secondary abilities that are differentially related to FL learning under different conditions. The aptitude complex hypothesis (Robinson, 2007) posits that some FL learners might possess strengths in abilities that are facilitative under specific learning conditions but prove to be ineffective in others. The ul- timate aim of his approach is to “make predictions about how to optimally match learners to instructional options” (Robinson, 2007, p. 274), thus creating the most advantageous environments for specific learner abilities. Robinson opts for the application of various focus-on-form techniques as a means of ped- agogic intervention in the performance of communication tasks (see e.g., Loe- wen, 2011, 2015, for a discussion of focus on form). Thus, for example, commu- nicative practice of target language features is optimized according to learners’ aptitude profiles when those more implicitly-oriented are exposed to recasts (i.e., corrective reformulations of erroneous utterances that retain their in- tended meaning; Robinson, 2002) in order to facilitate incidental learning, while those more analytically-oriented are provided with rule explanations with a view to catering to their preferred ways of processing. A comment seems to be in order at this juncture on the contributions of the two proposals. The major The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 403 strength of Skehan’s (2002) model lies in the fact that it relates stages of SLA to FL aptitude components in a way which firmly situates the construct within mainstream SLA research. Robinson’s (2002, 2007) model is consistent with the tenets of ATI (cf. Vatz, Tare, Jackson, & Doughty, 2013), and its main value con- cerns relating cognitive profiles of FL learners to different types of instruction. Both models give weight to WM, which reconceptualizes the original model of FL aptitude proposed by Carroll (1959) by adding extra abilities, such as noticing language forms in the input (see Section 5). With regard to practical application of the theory of FL aptitude, as sig- naled in Section 2 above, two different approaches can be adopted, namely: (a) FL aptitude training intended to facilitate its development, and (b) ATI. The for- mer has its roots in socialization theory. From this perspective, FL aptitude is considered to be dynamic, that is, it undergoes evolutionary development in in- teraction with the environment (cf. Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000), and it is thus potentially modifiable rather than predetermined. Consequently, it is believed that this attribute can be shaped in the process of education (Sternberg, 2002). This idea is reflected, for example, in a method of testing proposed by Sternberg (2002), known as dynamic testing, during which learners are given ongoing feed- back in order to improve their scores. Basing on this assumption, Grigorenko et al. (2000) developed an FL aptitude test, labeled the Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language (CANAL-FT). All of this clearly demonstrates that Sternberg’s model extends the research agenda by enriching the concept of FL aptitude with a dynamic, developmental dimension. In fact, in recent years, the questioning of aptitude as a fixed trait has intensified (see Singleton, 2014), es- pecially since the development of a claim that WM, which is believed to be sus- ceptible to the influence of experience and instruction (Gathercole, 2014), should be recognized as an important component of FL aptitude (Wen, 2016). A question also arises as to whether language aptitude and language experience or awareness are actually separable or whether they can be perceived as oper- ating on the same continuum. As Singleton (2014) suggests, the instruments used to measure FL aptitude and language awareness seem to capture at least partly overlapping constructs. The latter perspective, ATI, assumes that FL aptitudes should be matched to appropriate teaching methods. This approach is clearly represented by Rob- inson’s (2002) model that has been described above. Researchers in the areas of SLA and FL pedagogy have been attempting to translate these theoretical pro- posals into classroom practice by, for example, identifying learners’ cognitive profiles in order to uncover the best teaching method that would recognize their strengths and weaknesses. By matching learners to different types of instruction, researchers are able to determine whether or not a specific teaching technique is Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 404 beneficial and whether students with different profiles perform differently un- der varied learning conditions. One of the first attempts of this kind was Wesche's (1981) study in which learners representing different aptitude pro- files, that is, analytically-oriented or memory-oriented, were matched with dif- ferent instructional options. She indeed found that matching students’ learning profiles to corresponding learning conditions contributes to better quality of learning (see Vatz et al., 2013, for a review of ATI research). Ranta (2008), in turn, suggests that students should first be explicitly taught a specific rule and only then participate in consciousness-raising tasks to become able to extract information about a structure from the communicative input. In the case of learners with weak phonological skills, Ranta proposes a multisensory structured learning approach, in which learners are given opportunities to simultaneously attend to sound-spelling relationships, morphology and syntax, using all their senses and different modalities. Admittedly, all of these ideas have mainly remained in the sphere of the- ory and have never been empirically verified to the extent that would allow of- fering a set of reliable and at the same time feasible pedagogical proposals (cf. Ranta, 2008). A rare example of a practical illustration of how different IDs can be shaped or at least taken advantage of is the volume by Gregersen and Mac- Intyre (2014), who offer a wide array of hands-on activities related to all major ID variables, including FL aptitude. More specifically, drawing upon Skehan's (1998) theory, the authors present activities that can be deployed to improve learners’ skills required for the four stages of noticing, patterning, controlling and lexicalizing. In more general terms, Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014) stress the importance of individualization of instruction through task-based learning in groups. Following Cook’s (2001) and Ranta’s (2008) reasoning, they recognize two principles that have been identified in the literature, namely matching ver- sus compensatory. The matching principle is in line with Robinson’s ATI ap- proach as it suggests that teaching should accommodate the strengths of the learner to increase his or her chances for success, while the compensatory prin- ciple, reflecting Skehan’s (2002) position, holds that instructional practices should have as their aim compensating for learners’ weaknesses. For instance, explicit grammar instruction could be used either to capitalize upon learners’ strong analytical skills, which would indicate reliance on the matching principle, but it could also be employed as a means of remediation with a group of learn- ers with lower analytic skills, in which case the compensatory principle would come to the fore. Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014) also recommend awareness- raising activities aimed at identifying learners’ individual aptitudinal profiles by “matching some tasks to their strengths and compensating for limitations in oth- ers” (p. 86) according to Vygotsky's (1978) zone of proximal development. The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 405 Clearly, it is ultimately the teacher’s decision which principle he or she chooses to follow, the matching or compensatory one. In accordance with ATI principles, some efforts have recently been made to investigate the relationship between different types of input or interaction and specific aptitude profiles, which can be seen, for example, in the realm of grammar instruction. Li (2015a) reports 16 interactional studies that have exam- ined the interface between aptitude and the effectiveness of various instruc- tional treatments. The results of the studies are often contradictory as to the effectiveness of implicit versus explicit type of feedback (Sheen, 2007; Trofimo- vich, Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007) and the role of the learners’ proficiency level as a variable mediating the benefits accruing from different types of feedback (Li, 2009). Li (2015b) presents the results of his study examining the relationship between the effectiveness of recasts, as moderated by IDs in analytical ability and WM in learners at different stages of L2 development. Although learners representing both low and high proficiency levels appeared to benefit equally from recasts, it turned out that the less proficient students relied more on ana- lytical ability, whereas advanced ones were more likely to draw upon WM. Li (2015b) concluded that WM and analytical ability are sensitive to L2 learners’ proficiency and feedback type, thereby offering new insights into the role of the ATI approach, as is evident in the following comment: “The results afford further evidence against an eclectic approach to language teaching/learning . . . and underscore the importance of tailoring instruction to cater to learners at differ- ent stages of L2 development” (Li, 2015b, p. 156). Similarly to Ranta (2008) and Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014), Li suggests that explicit instruction coupled with metalinguistic explanation is more appropriate for beginners, especially those with poor analytic ability, whereas more advanced learners, who are likely to depend more on WM capacity, may benefit from memory strategies which can aid them in processing and retrieving new information as well as reconcep- tualizing old information. Some work on ATI has been done as well in the case of pronunciation, a good example being the research project by Perrachione, Lee, Ha, and Wong (2011), who explored the interaction between learners’ per- ceptual ability and training of non-native phonological contrasts in an input-var- iation study. The general conclusion was that different kinds of input, that is such characterized by high as opposed to low variability, can have a differential effect on learners manifesting different levels of phonological aptitude. Tare et al. (2014) and Doughty, Clark, Cook and Tare (2013) elaborate on cognitive IDs, the knowledge of which can be useful in creating learners’ profiles, thus further informing FL pedagogy in general and possibilities for suitable train- ing in particular. They emphasize both the need to recognize learners’ cognitive profiles and the necessity of ensuring on that basis optimal instruction conditions. Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 406 Doughty and her team developed a battery of tests, known as High-Level Lan- guage Aptitude Battery (Hi-LAB; Doughty et al., 2010), which can be used to predict the ultimate success of adult language learners in reaching high levels of proficiency in an FL. From this perspective, FL aptitude is defined as “a student’s ceiling on language ability, or the highest level that an individual is likely to achieve” (Tare et al., 2014, p. 6). The test taps into the following constructs: ex- ecutive functioning (i.e., WM, inhibitory control, task-switching), rote memory, perceptual acuity, processing speed, primability, and implicit and explicit induc- tion, with the researchers offering pedagogical recommendations related to all these (Tare et al., 2014). For example, since learners with low scores for rote memory have difficulty in learning words and phrases out of context, they may not be able to learn long lists of items. Such learners may benefit from focusing on discovering word meaning, building associations for new vocabulary via tasks in the target language, or being exposed to visually enhanced input. By contrast, in the case of students who score high on this construct and are thus able to learn decontextualized words, recommended techniques include the use of flashcards, translations or activities involving learning chunks of language. When it comes to learners who exhibit an aptitude for explicit learning, they are likely to benefit from direct, explicit grammar instruction, learning by induction and metalinguistic explanation. On the other hand, for those less explicitly-oriented, who are not good at extrapolating rules, a more traditional, deductive approach is advised, in which structures are first explained and only then applied. As re- gards learners endowed with high implicit learning ability, they tend to exhibit a preference for coping with complex or unfamiliar language in rich context rather than be taught explicitly. For this group, the best solution is to avoid explicit presentation of rules and to ensure instead a variety of language examples in context. Thus, implicitly-oriented learners can benefit from exposure to input, which can take the form of extensive listening and reading, meaning-based tasks as well as the provision of recasts in the course of message communication. 5. Working memory Working memory is now probably the most often studied ID factor in various fields, including cognitive and developmental psychology, neuroscience and SLA. A contemporary definition of WM is offered by Bunting and Engle (2015): “A convenient analogy for working memory is to think of it as the mental work- space of the mind: The small amount of memory that holds information and the capacity for attention control to manipulate that information for ongoing use” (p. xvii). As far as the relationship between WM and SLA is concerned, the stud- ies conducted to date have addressed all target language skills and subsystems, The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 407 different levels of proficiency and ultimate attainment, as well as different aspects of bilingualism, with WM having been found to act as an influential factor across all these areas (e.g., Biedroń & Szczepaniak, 2012; DeKeyser & Koeth, 2011; Doughty et al., 2010; Juffs & Harrington, 2011; Kormos & Sáfár, 2008; Linck et al., 2013; Linck, Osthus, Koeth, & Bunting, 2014; Miyake & Friedman, 1998; Robinson, 2003; Sawyer & Ranta, 2001; Skehan, 2015; Wen, 2015, 2016; Wen & Skehan, 2011). WM as a construct composed of four subsystems, that is phonological loop, central executive, visuospatial sketchpad and episodic buffer, was first conceptu- alized by cognitive psychologists Baddeley and Hitch (1974) and Baddeley (2000). Subsequently, the concept gradually began to enter the field of applied linguistics to finally become an integral part of the dominant models of FL aptitude (Robin- son, 2002; Skehan, 2002), and it is now proposed as a new FL aptitude (Wen, 2015, 2016; Wen, Biedroń, & Skehan, in press; Wen & Skehan, 2011). The discussion of WM usually revolves around its limited capacity, which is bound to constrain cognitive performance. To be more precise, individuals with greater WM capacity perform better on a variety of cognitive tasks, includ- ing, among others, complex learning, reading and listening comprehension, grammar and vocabulary learning, than those with smaller WM capacity. There- fore, in the words of Skehan (2015), the problem is “how these limitations can be minimized or circumvented” (p. 200), and finding a solution to this challenge constitutes one of the main objectives of FL teaching practice. Unfortunately, we still do not know which components of WM affect what aspects of language learning, which severely curtails the potential for pedagogical intervention. Two components of WM, namely the phonological loop and the central executive, are considered to be the most vital for this process. The first is a temporary ver- bal-acoustic storage system, whereas the other is a system responsible for at- tentional control of WM. Drawing upon the available empirical evidence, Wen (2015) makes an attempt to relate the phonological loop and the executive com- ponents of WM to specific aspects of language subsystems as well as SLA pro- cesses. Thus, he suggests that the phonological loop underlies language learning in the domains of lexis, formulaic sequences and morphosyntactic construc- tions, while the executive component plays a role in monitoring and attention- related processes, such as comprehension, interaction and production. In fact, the latter seems to be of particular importance to SLA, and, given its high corre- lation with verbal intelligence (Engle, Laughlin, Tuholski, & Conway, 1999) and learning outcomes in general, it seems to be implicated in more processes than researchers have been able to establish so far (Baddeley, 2015). Still, as has already been mentioned, there are numerous controversies surrounding WM and contra- dictory research findings abound, often due to the application of inconsistent re- search methodologies (Wright, 2015). On the whole, although it is evident that Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 408 learners with more capacious WM exceed in language learning, and that en- hancement of WM translates into better learning outcomes, there are still many doubts concerning the nature of this relationship. One such controversial area is the contribution of WM to grammar learning. While many studies (e.g., Fort- kamp, 2003; Juffs, 2015; Linck et al., 2014; Martin & N. Ellis, 2012; Williams & Lovatt, 2003) provide evidence for a complex relationship between WM capac- ity and learning grammar structures, the executive component is definitely more strongly implicated in grammar development than the phonological loop (see Linck et al., 2014). There is copious evidence that the efficacy of various types of instruction, including the provision of corrective feedback, is moderated by WM. Such instruc- tional options as explicit explanation, input flooding, input enhancement, negoti- ation for meaning or recasting may be more or less efficient for specific learners, depending, among others, on the capacity of WM. For example, recasting, which is a popular technique in the focus-on-form approach (see Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2002; Loewen, 2011, 2015), depends on noticing ability, and, thus, its utility may be limited in the case of learners endowed with low WM capacity (e.g., Goo, 2012; Mackey, Philip, Egi, Fujii, & Tatsumi,2002). Noticing the gap is one of FL aptitude factors, defined as aptitude for learning from recasting, in which the learner is supposed to learn from becoming aware of the difference between the recast and his prior, erroneous utterance, thus being able to make the requisite internal comparisons (Robinson, 2007, p. 274). As Tare et al. (2014) suggest, im- plicit feedback in the form of recasts is suitable for learners with high WM abilities because “they are able to notice various language aspects while performing a lan- guage task, while those with low working memory may need more explicit feed- back prior to, during, or after the task” (p. 14). Other types of instruction appro- priate for learners with high WM ability include online tasks performed in real time (e.g., interpretation, listening comprehension), discussions of cognitively complex topics, tasks with no planning time, interactive tasks, or learning words from context. All these activities are unsuitable for low WM capacity learners who benefit from more scaffolding and tasks which are less cognitively demanding. This is because such learners need more time for planning, the inclusion of pre- task activities as well as more repetitions. Analogically to FL aptitude, there are two approaches to WM in language instruction (Williams, 2012), namely: (a) manipulation aimed at increasing L2 learners’ WM capacity (Söderqvist & Nutley, 2015), and (b) modification of in- struction to suit L2 learners’ cognitive WM profile (Skehan, 2012). It should also be borne in mind that the two components of WM discussed above require ade- quate pedagogical intervention. This means that educators have to start with iden- tification of learners with poor WM, decide which components are problematic, The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 409 and apply proper, individualized training. There is a large body of empirical evi- dence showing that deficits in both the phonological store and attentional sys- tem severely impair language learning (Gathercole, Lamont, & Alloway, 2006), and that these deficits can be leveled out to some extent thanks to adept peda- gogic intervention (Gathercole 2014; Gathercole & Alloway, 2008; Holmes & Gathercole, 2014; Söderqvist & Nutley, 2015). Gathercole and colleagues have provided evidence that skillful training in the case of young children whose gen- eral academic performance is severely affected by poor WM produces consider- able and sustained results. This means that WM is a cognitive ID variable that is the most susceptible to improvement (Dehn, 2008; Gathercole, 2014; Gather- cole & Alloway, 2008; Klingberg, 2010; Söderqvist & Nutley, 2015). Because individualization of the learning process may be an unrealistic prospect for many teachers due to different limitations (e.g., scant classroom time, difficulty in identifying learner profiles, challenges of preparing different sets of materials), it seems advisable for them to encourage parents and learn- ers to train WM with the use of special computer programs, all the more so that numerous websites exist which help students develop their WM skills. Neuro- scientific data from studies conducted at Karolinska Institute in Sweden indicate plasticity of the areas of the brain responsible for WM capacity. An impressive number of 55 original research studies published in peer-reviewed journals demonstrate that WM could be trained to enable more and higher quality infor- mation processing (see Söderqvist & Nutley, 2015 for an overview). Overall, the research findings testify to sustained improvement in WM capacity from child- hood to adulthood, durable gains in attention, enhanced functioning of low-per- forming learners in math and reading, as well as better functioning of individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Moreover, improvement in WM capacity has been shown to be mirrored by changes in brain functioning. The improvement of WM resulting from the application of a popular commercial WM training program is supported by 25 controlled studies and has been vali- dated by independent meta-analyses (Cortese et al., 2015; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Spencer-Smith & Klingberg, 2015). The reported increase in WM capacity is truly impressive: an average 26% in visuo-spatial WM and 23% in ver- bal WM, as compared to the control groups (Söderqvist & Nutley, 2015). It is perhaps not surprising that these results have triggered doubts concerning their reliability. To quote from the report: The fact that WM is proven to be malleable with practice is a groundbreaking finding, which has caused some resistance and controversy in the academic world of psycho- logical theory in which WM capacity had traditionally been viewed as a fixed trait. (Söderqvist & Nutley, 2015, p. 6) Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 410 A number practical tips as to how WM can be exercised and enhanced as well as tasks that can be applied for this purpose can be found in Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014, pp. 72-73). Firstly, students with poor WM capacity should be identified, with the warning signs including, among others, inadequate recall, persistent inability to follow instructions, difficulty in keeping pace and failure to complete the set tasks. These problems are likely to stem from WM capacity overload, which can be minimized by limiting the amount of learning material, increasing the meaningfulness of the language input, and reorganizing complex tasks. The authors propose different means of pedagogic intervention, which could entail activation of relevant schemata, an increased number of repetitions of key information, as well as reliance on memory aids, such as, for example, realia, wall charts or audio-recordings. They also suggest falling back on multi- modal support, with the use of visualizations (Hummel & French, 2010), and various technical aids, such as multi-media or computer-assisted language learning. Finally, Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014) emphasize the role of strate- gies-based instruction that would aim at the development of individualized rep- ertoires of strategies aiding the transfer of the relevant information from WM to long-term memory and the other way around, as well as subsequent retrieval (e.g., note-talking, requesting assistance or organizing the learning process). 6. Personality As far as personality factors are concerned, there are several firmly established taxonomies in psychology, which view the main traits, that is agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion/introversion and neuroticism as separate, uni- versal and replicable factors that can be found in all societies and cultures of the world (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Although their impact on human behavior, in- cluding the outcomes of education, is well-established in the field of psychology, there is no convincing evidence that they correlate, whether positively or nega- tively, with success in learning FLs (see Dörnyei, 2005; Robinson & Ellis, 2008). One possible reason for this may be their general and universal nature. As is the case with intelligence, analyses of twin, adoption and family studies provide ro- bust and consistent evidence for both genetic and environmental contributions to personality, with the latter being far more difficult to detect and measure (Bouchard & McGue, 2002). Most likely, personality factors interact with cogni- tive variables and with success in learning FLs in a non-linear way, constituting interactions and relationships that are complex, dynamic and thus difficult to capture in research studies (Dörnyei, 2005). This is not to say, however, that such a link has not been demonstrated in SLA. For example, empirical evidence for the impact of personality has emerged from research on multilingualism (Dewaele, The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 411 2009, 2011; Ożańska-Ponikwia, 2011; Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martínez, Potter, & Pennebaker, 2006) as well as studies of high levels of attainment (Bie- droń, 2011; Forsberg Lundell & Sandgren, 2013; Hu & Reiterer, 2009). An increas- ingly important role is ascribed to empathy, which has been found to affect suc- cess in learning pronunciation (Hu et al., 2013; Rota & Reiterer, 2009) and to highly correlate with FL aptitude (Forsberg Lundell & Sandgren, 2013). What is interest- ing, the boundary between affect and cognition is blurred in contemporary psy- chology. In fact, there is copious evidence for intelligence-personality associations in this domain (e.g., Asendorpf, 2014; Von Stumm, 2014), which might suggest that future SLA research should focus to a much greater extent on the interface between cognition and affect, somewhat in line with Dörnyei’s (2005) pronounce- ment that “examining the combined effect or interrelationships of personality traits and other ID variables may also yield meaningful insights” (p. 30). What is more, teachers intuitively know that much of their students’ learning and their response to particular instructional tasks are underpinned by personality factors. Shy and introverted students, for example, may be less willing to communicate than extrovert and risk-taking ones, while analytical and conscientious learners are likely to do well in a traditional classroom. It is one thing, however, to be intuitively aware of the contribution of per- sonality traits or even to prove empirically that they mediate the effects of spe- cific instructional activities or determine the choice of language learning strate- gies, and quite another to employ pedagogical intervention in this area. For one thing, it is difficult to decide what the overall aim of such an intervention should be because it is clear that, even if this were possible, language teachers should not strive to change the personalities of their learners, however desirable such changes might seem in some situations. It would thus seem that the practical application of the results of research on personality are restricted and could per- haps take the form of individualization, awareness-raising, application of varied activities that would cater for different personality traits, and encouraging learn- ers to perform tasks that may not be fully compatible with their personality pro- files. With respect to individualization, although such an approach is feasible in one-on-one tutoring or in very small groups of learners, it poses a major chal- lenge in a class of 20 or 30 students for the reasons already mentioned above, and therefore it is highly unlikely to assume the status of a regular instructional practice. Much easier to implement is awareness-raising, which, as Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014) note with regard to learning styles, applies in equal meas- ure to learners and teachers. This could be achieved, for example, by having stu- dents fill out simple surveys on personality available on the Internet but also by means of tools intended to tap into learning style preferences, such as the Learn- ing Style Survey (Cohen, Oxford, & Ci, 2001), as they also incorporate personality Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 412 dimensions. Armed with requisite knowledge about themselves and their learn- ers, teachers will find it easier to ensure variety in the sense that the learning tasks employed will take into consideration the various personality traits repre- sented by students in a particular class. On the one hand, this will ensure a cer- tain degree of matching instructional options to the profiles of specific learners, but, on the other, it will also encourage what could be referred to as personality stretching, as some activities are bound to force learners to engage in the kind of learning that goes against predominant personality traits (Gregersen & Mac- Intyre, 2014; Oxford, 1999, 2003). This having been said, it should be empha- sized that being too adamant about getting learners to leave their personality- related “comfort zones” (Ehrman, 1996) may backfire, because not only is it un- likely to be effective, but it could also alienate some students, producing nega- tive consequences for motivation, willingness to communicate or anxiety levels. 7. Conclusion The aim of the present paper has been to consider the extent to which the find- ings of research into cognitive variables in SLA, such as intelligence, FL aptitude and WM, as well as personality traits, all of which can be regarded as difficult to manipulate through pedagogic intervention, can be applicable to classroom practice. On the face of it, as demonstrated with respect to all the factors in question, the available empirical evidence offers important insight into the con- tribution of these ID variables, sometimes providing a basis for suggesting con- crete solutions that teachers could fall back upon to assist their learners. After all, there are certainly ways in which practitioners could employ the matching or compensatory options by trying to emphasize their learners’ strengths and resorting to remediation to offset the negative effects of their weaknesses, try to build upon the dominant intelligences or hone those that are somewhat lack- ing, get learners to use the available software to expand their WM capacity, en- sure that students are cognizant of their ID profiles or implement a modicum of variety which would at the same time involve a certain degree of matching, com- pensation and stretching. This is certainly the position adopted by Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014), who comment with reference to cognitive abilities: “Alt- hough they may be somewhat stable features (perhaps in specific domains), we believe that cognitive abilities and attentional variables can be changed or ma- nipulated through instruction and experience” (p. 79). While the activities in- cluded in their book indeed demonstrate that teachers can do a lot to manipu- late the ID factors discussed in this paper, there are grounds to temper our op- timism in this respect for several reasons. First, as was made clear in the current discussion, the research findings are still patchy and at times contradictory, with The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 413 the effect that the exact role of, say, different components of FL aptitude or WM, is far from clear. Second, there is still a paucity of research that would shed light on the way in which the factors in question mediate the effects of specific in- structional techniques or such that would examine the effects of training, and empirical evidence of this kind is certainly needed if reliable pedagogical pro- posals are to be offered. Third, irrespective of what the research findings reveal, a question arises as to the extent to which teachers can capitalize on such in- sights with respect to intelligence, FL aptitude, WM or personality, for the simple reason that they lack the necessary expertise and tools to tap these IDs, their judgments are bound to be intuitive and thus often inaccurate, and these con- structs as such may seem far removed from the realities of the classroom. Fourth, there are many practical reasons which may cause teachers to shy away from im- plementing pedagogic intervention, such as the lack of time, the need to achieve curricular goals, focus on exam requirements, the additional burden of preparing extra materials that would cater to individual learner profiles, the unfeasibility of individualization in large classes, or simply resistance and lack of interest on the part of students. All of this should not be taken to mean that practitioners had better do nothing to respond to various cognitive and personality profiles, but, rather, that consistent research findings are indispensable as a basis for clear-cut and feasible pedagogical implications that could guide teachers in their efforts to effectively develop some abilities or adjust their instructional practices in such a way that individual learner variation with respect to intelligence, FL aptitude, WM and personality becomes an asset rather than a liability. Acknowledgements The present article represents a contribution to the project no. 2015/17/B/HS2/01704 (2016-2019) funded by the National Science Centre, Poland. Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 414 References Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Ac- quisition, 30, 481-509. doi: 10.1017/S027226310808073X Asendorpf, J. (2014, July). Development of intelligence and personality: Cross- lagged effects and moderations. Paper presented at an invited symposium at the 17th European Conference on Personality: Putting Personality in Context, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-123.doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 Baddeley, A. D. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z. E. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17-28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychol- ogy of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-90). New York: Academic Press. Biedroń, A. (2011). Personality factors as predictors of foreign language apti- tude. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 467-489. Re- trieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10593/2426 Biedroń, A., & Szczepaniak, A. (2012). Working-memory and short-term memory abilities in accomplished multilinguals. Modern Language Journal, 96, 290- 306. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01332.x Bouchard, T. J. Jr., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on hu- man psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54, 4-45.doi: 10.1002/ neu.10160 Bunting, M., & Engle, R. (2015). Foreword. In Z. E. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. xvii-xxiv).Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Carroll, J. B. (1959). Use of the Modern Language Aptitude Test in secondary schools. Yearbook of the National Council on Measurements Used in Edu- cation, 16, 155-159. Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learn- ing aptitude (pp. 83-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic stud- ies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. San Anto- nio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Ceci, S. J. (1996). On intelligence. A bio-ecological treatise on intellectual devel- opment (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 415 Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. C. (2001). Learning style survey. Retrieved from http://carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/LearningStyleSurvey_MAXSA_IG.pdf Cook, V. J. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Cortese, S., Ferrin, M., Brandeis, D., Buitelaar, J., Daley, D., Dittmann, R. W., . . . European ADHD Guidelines Group (EAGG). (2015). Cognitive training for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Meta-analysis of clinical and neu- ropsychological outcomes from randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 54, 164-174. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2014.12.010 Dehn, M. J. (2008). Working memory and academic learning: Assessment and intervention. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. DeKeyser, R. M., & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 395-407). New York: Routledge. Dewaele, J-M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 623-646). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Dewaele, J-M. (2011). Reflections on the emotional and psychological aspects of foreign language learning and use. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 22, 23-42. Doughty, C. J., Campbell, S. G., Mislevy, M. A., Bunting, M. F., Bowles, A. R., & Koeth, J. T. (2010). Predicting near-native ability: The factor structure and reliability of Hi-LAB. In M. T. Prior, Y. Watanabe, & S-K. Lee (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 10-31). Somerville, MA: Cas- cadilla Proceedings Project. Retrieved from www.lingref.com, document #2382 Doughty, C., Clark, M., Cook, S., & Tare, M. (2013). Needs analysis for tailored training (TTO 1004) (CASL Tech. Rep.). College Park, MD: Center for Ad- vanced Study of Language. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2010). The relationship between language aptitude and language learning motivation: Individual differences from a dynamic systems per- spective. In E. Macaro (Ed.), Continuum companion to second language acquisition (pp. 247-267). London: Continuum. Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers. Build- ing vision in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 416 Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Routledge. Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learn- ing. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419-432. Engle, R. W., Laughlin, J. E., Tuholski, S. W., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-var- iable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309- 331. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 Forsberg Lundell, F., & Sandgren, M. (2013). High-level proficiency in late L2 acquisi- tion: Relationships between collocational production, language aptitude and personality. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language ap- titude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 231-255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fortkamp, M. B. M. (2003). Working memory capacity and fluency, accuracy, complexity and lexical density in L2 speech production. Fragmentos, 24, 69 104. doi: 10.5007/fragmentos.v24i0.7659 Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic. Gathercole, S. (2014, July). Working memory training, what training? Paper pre- sented at the International Conference on Working Memory, Cambridge, UK. Gathercole, S. E., & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and classroom learning. In K. Thurman & K. Fiorello (Eds.), Cognitive development in K-3 classroom learning: Research applications (pp. 15-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gathercole, S. E., Lamont, E., & Alloway, T. P. (2006). Working memory in the classroom. In S. J. Pickering (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 219-240). Burlington, MA: Academic Press. Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction- driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445-474. doi: 10.1017/S0272263112000149 Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29, 311-343. doi: 10.1177/0267658312461497 Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners’ indi- viduality: From premise to practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 417 Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The CANAL-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84, 390-405. doi: 10.1111/0026-7902.00076 Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2014). Taking working memory training from the laboratory into schools. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 34, 440-450. doi: 10.1080/01443410. 2013.79733 Hu, X., Ackermann, H., Martin, J. A., Erb, M., Winkler, S., & Reiterer, S. M. (2013). Language aptitude for pronunciation in advanced second language (L2) learners: Behavioral predictors and neural substrates. Brain and Lan- guage, 127, 366-376. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.11.006 Hu, X., & Reiterer, S. (2009). Personality and pronunciation talent in second lan- guage acquisition. In G. Dogil & S. Reiterer (Eds.), Language talent and brain activity (pp. 97-130). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hummel, K. M., & French, L. (2010). Phonological memory and implications for the second language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 371-391. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.66.3.371 Jensen, A. R. (1997). The puzzle of nongenetic variance. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 42-88). Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Juffs, A. (2015). Working memory and sentence processing: A commentary. In Z. E. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 125-138). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137-166. doi: 10.1017/S0261444810000509 Klingberg, T. (2010). Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cogni- tive Sciences, 14, 317-324. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.002 Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Lan- guage and Cognition, 11, 261-271. doi: 10.1017/S1366728908003416 Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language development from a complex system perspective. Modern Language Jour- nal, 92, 200-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x Li, S. (2009). The differential effects of implicit and explicit feedback on L2 learn- ers of different proficiency levels. Applied Language Learning, 19, 53-79. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x Li, S. (2015a). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385-408. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu054 Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 418 Li, S. (2015b). Working memory, language analytical ability and L2 recasts. In Z. E. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 139-160). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. J. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level lan- guage proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530-566. doi: 10.1111/lang.12011 Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psycho- nomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861-883. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2 Loehlin, J. C., Horn, J. M., & Willerman, L. (1997). Heredity, environment, and IQ in the Texas Adoption Project. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 105-125). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Loewen, S. (2011). Focus on form. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching. Volume 2 (pp. 576-592). London: Routledge. Loewen, S. (2015). Instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge. Long, M. H. (2013). Maturational constraints on child and adult SLA. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 3-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mackey, A., Philip, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learn- ing (pp. 181-209). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological STM and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Lan- guage Acquisition, 34, 379-413. doi: 10.1017/S0272263112000125 McCrae, R. R., &. Costa, P. T. Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests. Swansea: Lognostics. Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta- analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49, 270-291. doi: 10.1037/a0028228 Mercer, S. (2012). Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist. ELT Journal, 66, 22-29. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccr022 Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language profi- ciency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. Healy & L. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning (pp. 339-364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Moyer, A. (2013). Accent and the individual – foreign accent – the phenomenon of non-native speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 419 Oxford. R. L. (1999). Style wars as a source of anxiety in language classrooms. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in in second language learning: A practical guide to deal- ing with language anxiety (pp. 213-237). Boston, MA: MacGraw-Hill. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Gala, 1-25. Oxford, R. L. (2011) Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Har- low: Pearson Education. Ożańska-Ponikwia, K. (2011). What has personality and emotional intelligence to do with ‘feeling different’ while using a foreign language? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2011.616185 Pawlak, M. (2012). Individual differences in language learning and teaching: Achievements, prospects and challenges. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New per- spectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. xix-xlvi). Heidelberg: Springer. Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y. Y., & Wong, P. C. M. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differ- ences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 461-472. doi: 10.1121/1.3593366 Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Plomin, R. (1997). Identifying genes for cognitive abilities and disabilities. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environ- ment (pp. 89-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plomin, R., & Deary, J. (2015). Genetics and intelligence differences: Five special findings. Molecular Psychiatry, 20, 98-108. doi: 10.1038/mp.2014.105 Ramírez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S. D., Benet-Martínez, V., Potter, J. P., & Penne- baker, J. W. (2006). Do bilinguals have two personalities? A special case of cultural frame switching. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 99-120. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.09.001 Ranta, L. (2008). Aptitude and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Les- sons from good language learners (pp.142-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and in- structed language learning (pp. 113-133). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-679). Oxford: Blackwell. Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In R. M. DeKey- ser (Ed.), Practice in second language (pp. 256-286). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 420 Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second lan- guage acquisition and L2 instruction – issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489-545). New York: Routledge. Rota, G., & Reiterer, S. M. (2009). Cognitive aspects of pronunciation talent. In G. Dogil & S. Reiterer (Eds.), Language talent and brain activity (pp. 67- 112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sasaki, M. (1996). Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence. Quantitative and qualitative analyses. New York: Peter Lang. Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instruc- tional design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruc- tion (pp. 319-354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scarr, S. (1997). Behavior-genetic and socialization theories of intelligence: Truce and reconciliation. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 3-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schumann, J. H. (2004). The neurobiology of aptitude. In J. H. Schumann (Ed.), The neurobiology of learning: Perspectives from second language acquisi- tion (pp. 7-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301-322). New York: Oxford University Press. Singleton, D. (2014). Apt to change: The problematic of language awareness and language aptitude in age-related research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 557-571. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.3.9 Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Indi- vidual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69-95). Philadel- phia, PA: John Benjamins. Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381-395). Abing- don: Routledge. Skehan, P. (2015). Working memory and second language performance: A com- mentary. In Z. E. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 189-204). Bristol: Mul- tilingual Matters. The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case. . . 421 Söderqvist, S., & Nutley, S. (2015). Cogmed working memory training. Claims & evidence, Complete Version. Pearson Clinical Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.cogmed.com/wp-content/uploads/CogmedClaimsEvidence.pdf Spencer-Smith, M., & Klingberg, T. (2015). Benefits of a working memory train- ing program for inattention in daily life: A systematic review and meta- analysis. PLoS ONE, 10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119522 Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). The theory of Successful Intelligence and its implications for language aptitude testing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 13-43). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (Eds.). (1997). Intelligence, heredity, and en- vironment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing. Tare, M., Bonilla, C., Vatz, K., Clark, M., Linck, J., & Doughty, C. J. (2014). Building a language learner’s profile. Characteristics which inform training and ped- agogy. University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language. Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171-195). New York: Oxford University Press. Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. (2013). Aptitude-treatment inter- action in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273-292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Von Stumm, S. (2014, July). Need for cognition in children and adolescents: Corre- lates and relations to intelligence and school performance. Paper presented at an invited symposium at the 17th European Conference on Personality: Putting Personality in Context, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychologi- cal processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wen, Z. E. (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and pro- cessing: The phonological/executive model. In Z. E. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and pro- cessing (pp. 41-62). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wen, Z. E. (2016). Working memory and second language learning: Towards an integrated approach. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wen, E., & Skehan, P. (2011). A new perspective on foreign language aptitude: Building and supporting a case for “working memory as language aptitude”. Adriana Biedroń, Mirosław Pawlak 422 Ilha Do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures and Cultural Studies, 60, 9-34. doi:10.5007/2175- 8026.2011n60p015 Wen, Z. E., Biedroń, A., & Skehan, P. (in press). Foreign language aptitude: Yes- terday, today and tomorrow. Language Teaching. Wesche, M. B. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching stu- dents with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119-154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. White, J., & Ranta, L. (2002). Examining the interface between metalinguistic task performance and oral production in a second language. Language Awareness, 11, 259-290. doi: 10.1080/09658410208667060 Williams, J.N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427-441). Oxford: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. (2003), Phonological memory and rule learning. Lan- guage Learning, 53, 67-121. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00211 Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology in language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wong, P. C. M., Morgan-Short, K., Ettlinger, M., & Zheng, J. (2012). Linking neu- rogenetics and individual differences in language learning: The dopamine hypothesis. Cortex, 48, 1091-1102. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.03.017 Wright, C. (2015). Working memory and L2 development across the lifespan: A commentary. In Z. E. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 285-300). Bristol: Mul- tilingual Matters.