Modern Language Aptitude Test - Issues of Debate

Issues of Debate

One issue taken with the MLAT is that it does not include any measure of motivation. Motivation can be a powerful factor; low motivation may cause poor performance in a language course or training program despite a high score on an aptitude test like the MLAT. Alternatively, a relatively low score on an aptitude test combined with high motivation to learn a language may result in average or even above average performance because of a student putting more time and effort into the language program. Accordingly, proper use of the MLAT would be to use it as one part of a more comprehensive assessment of the learner, or use the test in a setting where motivation is known to be uniformly high. In response to this issue, Paul Pimsleur developed the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB), which includes a section that assesses motivation in examinees.

Another issue taken with using language aptitude tests like the MLAT is that they are not directly helpful to individuals who are required to learn a language regardless of their language learning abilities. According to John Carroll, language learning aptitude is relatively stable over an individual’s lifetime, so if an individual scores poorly on the MLAT, there is no proven method to increase their language learning aptitude if they must learn a language. One way the MLAT could be helpful in this situation is to indicate that more time learning the language will be needed relative to someone who received a high score on the MLAT. It can also assist them by showing which learning strategies that they use best.

The age of the test along with its norms is another area of concern. The test was developed in 1953-58 and the norms were calculated with data collected in 1958. The audio-lingual teaching methods used with the norming subjects have been replaced by a more communicative teaching method. In 1998, research conducted by Madeline Ehrman, the Director of Research, Evaluation and Development at the U.S. Foreign Service Institute, produced validity coefficients at approximately the same levels as the original validity coefficients from 1958. Research from Leila Ranta (Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at University of Alberta) as well as Harley and Hart (with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto) has shown an association with good language analytic ability and good language learners in a communicative learning environment (2002).