Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 8:2 (2022) ► pp.237–260

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required
Position paper

On learner characteristics and why we should model them as latent variables

 | Northern Arizona University
 | Northern Arizona University
 | University of Maryland
Published online: 26 January 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.21007.lar
Abstract
Learner corpus research has a strong tradition of collecting metadata. However, while we tend to collect rich descriptive information about learners on directly measurable variables such as age, year of study, and time spent abroad, we frequently do not know much about learner characteristics that cannot be measured directly (and that thus need to be measured through questionnaires and tests) such as language aptitude, working memory, and motivation, which have been identified as important variables in neighboring fields such as Second Language Acquisition. In this position piece, we (i) join the proponents of increased focus on learner characteristics in LCR in arguing in favor of collecting information about such variables and (ii) introduce an analytical framework that can be used to model these variables. Specifically, the primary focus of this paper is to discuss the concept of latent variables as it relates to LCR and show how their standard form can be used to model learner characteristics within the structural equation modeling analytical framework.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Latent variables: A conceptual overview
  • 3.Structural equation modeling: A framework for modeling learner characteristics as latent variables
  • 4.Modeling latent variables
  • 5.A worked example
    • 5.1Latent variable path analysis
    • 5.2Latent variable path analysis vs. multiple regression
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 453–460. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 531, 605–634. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bollen, K. A., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 1101, 305–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2019). Cognitive language aptitude. Language Learning, 691, 101–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2021). The Process Corpus of English in Education: Going beyond the written text. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 31–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S. (2021). Examining individual variation in learner production data: A few programmatic pointers for corpus-based analyses using the example of adverbial clause ordering. Applied Psycholinguistics, 421, 279–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hancock, G. R., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Structural equation modeling: Possibilities for language learning researchers. Language Learning, 65 (Supp. 1), 160–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henseler, J. (2021). Composite-based structural equation modeling: Analyzing latent and emergent variables. Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
In’nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2011). Structural equation modeling in language testing and learning research: A review. Language Assessment Quarterly, 81, 250–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2013). Reverse arrow dynamics: Feedback loops and formative measurement. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.) (pp. 41–79). Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., & Hancock, G. R. (2021). On the benefits of structural equation modeling for corpus linguists. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(3), 683–714. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A Meta-Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 801–842. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 21(4), 861–883. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2019). Setting an agenda for positive psychology in SLA: Theory, practice, and research. Modern Language Journal, 1031, 262–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 111, 320–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J., & Götz, S. (2015). Learner corpora and learning context. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 423–442). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Posey, C., Roberts, T. L., Lowry, P. B., & Bennett, R. J. (2015). Multiple indicators and multiple causes (MIMIC) models as a mixed-modeling technique: A tutorial and an annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 36 (Article 11), 179–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Rodgers, J. L. (2010). The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: A quiet methodological revolution. American Psychologist, 651, 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sudina, E., & Plonsky, L. (2021). Academic perseverance in foreign language learning: An investigation of language-specific grit and its conceptual correlates. Modern Language Journal, 1051, 829–857. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teimouri, Y. (2017). L2 selves, emotions, and motivated behaviors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 391, 681–709. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 411, 363–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tekwe, C. D., Zoh, R. S., Bazer, F. W., Wu, G., & Carrol, R. J. (2018). Functional multiple indicators, multiple causes measurement error models. Biometrics, 74(1), 127–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watanabe, M., Hirose, K., Den, Y., & Minematsu, N. (2008). Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of up-coming phrases for native and non-native listeners. Speech Communication, 50(2), 81–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Ke, Yuguo & Xiaozhen Zhou
2025. From Argument to Algorithm: L2 Teachers’ Cognitive Bootstrapping in Validity Argument in Writing Assessment. SAGE Open 15:1 DOI logo
Kostromitina, Maria, Ben Naismith, Jill Burstein & Luke Plonsky
2025. Beyond GPA and language proficiency: A systematic literature review of international students' academic success factors. Review of Education 13:2 DOI logo
Kourchi, Youssef El & Nabil El Akkad
2025. 2025 International Conference on Circuit, Systems and Communication (ICCSC), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Spina, Stefania
2025. Complexity and accuracy of verbal morphology in written L2 Italian. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 11:1 ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo
Larsson, Tove, Douglas Biber & Gregory R. Hancock
2024. On the role of cumulative knowledge building and specific hypotheses: the case of grammatical complexity. Corpora 19:3 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Larsson, Tove & Gregory R. Hancock
2024. Exploring potential unknown subgroups in your data: An introduction to finite mixture models for applied linguistics. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 3:2 ► pp. 100117 ff. DOI logo
Kaatari, Henrik, Tove Larsson, Ying Wang, Seda Acikara-Eickhoff & Pia Sundqvist
2023. Exploring the effects of target-language extramural activities on students’ written production. Journal of Second Language Writing 62 ► pp. 101062 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Yiran, Jingyuan Zhuang, Ryan Blair, Amy I. Kim, Fei Li, Rachel Thorson Hernández & Luke Plonsky
2023. Modeling quality and prestige in applied linguistics journals: A bibliometric and synthetic analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 13:4 ► pp. 755 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue