Differences in learners
In Chapter 3, we considered the basic question of why some L2 learners are more successful than others from a linguistic perspective, and in Chapter 5 we will again consider this question from the perspective of the social contexts of learning. Here we address this question from a psychological perspective, focusing on differences among learners themselves. The differences we explore here are age, sex, aptitude, motivation, cognitive style, personality, and learning strategies. Some of the relevant research looks at neurological representation and organization (such as the research reported above in the section on languages and the brain), some is of an experimental nature (which manipulates variables and makes direct claims about cause and effect), and some relies on “good language learner” studies (which deal with correlations between specific traits and successful SLA). Some of this research remains quite speculative.
Age
It is a common belief that children are more successful L2 learners than adults, but the evidence for this is actually surprisingly equivocal. One reason for the apparent inconsistency in research findings is that some studies define relative “success” as initial rate of learning (where, contrary to popular belief, older learners have an advantage) while other studies define it as ultimate achievement (where learners who are introduced to the L2 in childhood indeed do appear to have an edge). Also, some studies define “success” in terms of how close the learner’s pronunciation is to a native speaker’s, others in terms of how closely a learner approximates native grammaticality judgments, and still others in terms of fluency or functional competence. It is very important to keep evaluative criteria clearly in mind while judging conflicting claims.
The question of whether, and how, age affects L2 outcomes has been a major issue in SLA for several decades, and a number of recent publications provide reviews from different points of view (e.g. Birdsong 1999; Scovel 2000; Singleton 2001). Some of the advantages which have been reported for both younger and older learners are listed in Table 4.3.
We noted in the earlier section of this chapter on languages and the brain that there is a critical period for first language acquisition: children have only a limited number of years during which normal acquisition is possible. Beyond that, physiological changes cause the brain to lose its plasticity, or capacity to assume the new functions that learning language demands. Individuals who for some reason are deprived of the linguistic input which is needed to trigger first language acquisition during the critical period will never learn any language normally. One famous documented case which provides rare evidence for this point is that of Genie, an abused girl who was kept isolated from all language input and interaction until she was thirteen years old. In spite of years of intensive efforts at remediation, Genie never developed linguistic knowledge and skills for her L1 (English) that were comparable to those of speakers who began acquisition in early childhood (Curtiss 1977).
Lenneberg (1967) speculated that the critical period applies to SLA as well as to first language acquisition, and that this accounts for why almost all L2 speakers have a “foreign accent” if they do not begin learning the language before the cut-off age. Seliger (1978) and Long (1990) argue instead that there are multiple periods which place constraints on different aspects of language: e.g. different periods relate to the acquisition of phonology versus the acquisition of syntax. They also suggest that these periods do not impose absolute cut-off points; it is just that L2 acquisition will more likely be complete if begun in childhood than if it does not start until a later age. This weaker claim seems warranted since some older learners can achieve native-like proficiency, although they definitely constitute a minority of second language learners.
While most would agree that younger learners achieve ultimately higher levels of L2 proficiency, evidence is just as convincing that adolescents and adults learn faster in initial stages. While “brain plasticity” is listed as a younger learner advantage in Table 4.3, older learners are advantaged by greater learning capacity, including better memory for vocabulary. Greater analytic ability might also be an advantage for older learners, at least in the short run, since they are able to understand and apply explicit grammatical rules. On the other hand, Newport (1990) suggests that “less is more” in this respect: one reason younger learners develop more native-like grammatical intuitions is that they are in a non-analytic processing mode. This calls for another qualification: younger learners are probably more successful in informal and naturalistic L2 learning contexts, and older learners in formal instructional settings.
Other advantages that younger learners may have are being less inhibited than older learners, and having weaker feelings of identity with people (other than close family or caregivers) who speak the same native language. Children are also more likely to receive simplified language input from others, which might facilitate their learning (a factor that will be discussed in Chapter 5). Other advantages that older learners may have include higher levels of pragmatic skills and knowledge of L1, which may transfer positively to L2 use; more real-world knowledge enables older learners to perform tasks of much greater complexity, even when their linguistic resources are still limited.
A comprehensive explanation of age effects on SLA must ultimately take into account not only the multiple valuative criteria for “success” that I mentioned above, but the system of language being learned, the stage of L2 development under consideration, the roles of both innate and environmental predispositions, and the complexities of input and of individual differences. (For a well-researched and carefully reasoned discussion of the full range of influencing factors, see Herschensohn 2007.)
Sex
Most research on the relation of learner sex and SLA has been concerned with cognitive style or learning strategies, or to issues of what variety of L2 is being acquired or opportunities for input and interaction (social factors to be discussed in Chapter 5). There is widespread belief in many western cultures that females tend to be better L2 learners than males, but this belief is probably primarily a social construct, based on outcomes which reflect cultural and sociopsychological constraints and influences.
There do appear to be some sex differences in language acquisition and processing, but the research evidence is mixed. For example, women out perform men in some tests of verbal fluency (such as finding words that begin with a certain letter), and women’s brains may be less asymmetrically organized than men’s for speech (Kimura 1992). Of particular potential relevance to SLA are findings in relation to mental representations in the lexicon versus the grammar: females seem to be better at memorizing complex forms, while males appear to be better at computing compositional rules (e.g. Halpern 2000). Other differences may be related to hormonal variables: higher androgen level correlates with better automatized skills, and high estrogen with better semantic/interpretive skills (Mack 1992). Kimura (1992) reports that higher levels of articulatory and motor ability have been associated in women with higher levels of estrogen during the menstrual cycle.
Aptitude
The assumption that there is a talent which is specific to language learning has been widely held for many years. The following four components were proposed by Carroll (1965) as underlying this talent, and they constitute the bases for most aptitude tests:
• Phonemic coding ability
• Inductive language learning ability
• Grammatical sensitivity
• Associative memory capacity
Phonemic coding ability is the capacity to process auditory input into segments which can be stored and retrieved. It is particularly important at very early stages of learning when this ability “is concerned with the extent to which the input which impinges on the learner can become input that is worth processing, as opposed to input which may simply be an auditory blur or alternatively only partially processed” (Skehan 1998 :203). In other words, if the hearer cannot analyze the incoming stream of speech into phonemes in order to recognize morphemes, input may not result in intake.
Inductive language-learning ability and grammatical sensitivity are both concerned with central processing. They account for further processing of the segmented auditory input by the brain to infer structure, identify patterns, make generalizations, recognize the grammatical function of elements, and formulate rules. It is in central processing that restructuring occurs.
Associative memory capacity is importantly concerned with how linguistic items are stored, and with how they are recalled and used in output. Associative memory capacity determines appropriate selection from among the L2 elements that are stored, and ultimately determines speaker fluency.
The concept of language-learning aptitude is essentially a hypothesis that possessing various degrees of these abilities predicts correlated degrees of success in L2 acquisition. Skehan (1998) reviews research in this area which largely supports this assumption, although he concludes that individual ability may vary by factor: e.g. a learner who has a high level of grammatical sensitivity may have a poor associative memory or vice versa. Talent in all factors is not a requirement for success in L2 learning. Some good learners achieve success because of their linguistic-analytic abilities, and some because of their memory aptitude. Skehan further concludes that language-learning aptitude “is not completely distinct from general cognitive abilities, as represented by intelligence tests, but it is far from the same thing” (1998:209).
The findings that aptitude is an important predictor of differential success in L2 learning holds both for naturalistic contexts and for formal classroom instruction. It is not completely deterministic, however, and is but one of several factors which may influence ultimate L2 proficiency.
Motivation
Another factor which is frequently cited to explain why some L2 learners are more successful than others is individual motivation. Motivation largely determines the level of effort which learners expend at various stages in their L2 development, often a key to ultimate level of proficiency.
Motivation is variously defined, but it is usually conceived as a con struct which includes at least the following components (see Oxford and Ehrman 1993; Dörnyei 2001):
• Significant goal or need
• Desire to attain the goal
• Perception that learning L2 is relevant to fulfilling the goal or meeting the need
• Belief in the likely success or failure of learning L2
• Value of potential outcomes/rewards
The most widely recognized types of motivation are integrative and instrumental. Integrative motivation is based on interest in learning L2 because of a desire to learn about or associate with the people who use it (e.g. for romantic reasons), or because of an intention to participate or integrate in the L2-using speech community; in any case, emotional or affective factors are dominant. Instrumental motivation involves perception of purely practical value in learning the L2, such as increasing occupational or business opportunities, enhancing prestige and power, accessing scientific and technical information, or just passing a course in school. Neither of these orientations has an inherent advantage over the other in terms of L2 achievement. The relative effect of one or the other is dependent on complex personal and social factors: e.g. L2 learning by a member of the dominant group in a society may benefit more from integrative motivation, and L2 learning by a subordinate group member may be more influenced by instrumental motivation. Although the concept of speech community (Chapter 5) has expanded globally to include the virtual community of internet users, usually in L2 English, the same general distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation can be applied. Other reported motivations include altruistic reasons, general communicative needs, desire to travel, and intellectual curiosity (Skehan 1989; Oxford and Ehrman 1993).
Most of the research on this topic has been conducted using data collected with questionnaires that ask individuals to report on their reasons for learning another language. The reliability of such information has been questioned, but the consistently high correlation between reported strength of motivation and level of L2 achievement make it seem quite likely that the connection is indeed significant. Whether any cause–effect relationship is a “chicken-and-egg” matter is more uncertain. Does high motivation cause high L2 achievement, or is the satisfaction which results from successful L2 learning responsible for increasing motivation? In the process of language learning (which usually requires several years), there is probably a reciprocal effect.
More recent developments in SLA theory (Schumann 1997, 2001) suggest that motivation for second language learning, along with L2 representation and processing, is controlled by neurological mechanisms. Specific areas within our brain conduct a “stimulus appraisal,” which assesses the motivational relevance of events and other stimuli and deter mines how we respond, including what our attitudes and ultimately degree of effort will be.
The potential power of motivation can be seen in rare cases where even older learners may overcome the “odds” of not acquiring native-like pronunciation – if sounding “native” is perceived to be important enough.
Cognitive style
Cognitive style refers to individuals’ preferred way of processing: i.e. of perceiving, conceptualizing, organizing, and recalling information. Unlike factors of age, aptitude, and motivation, its role in explaining why some L2 learners are more successful than others has not been well established, but extravagant claims have sometimes been made which need to be viewed with skepticism and caution. We do know that, whatever the relation of cognitive style to success, it involves a complex (and as yet poorly understood) interaction with specific L2 social and learning contexts. Cognitive style is also closely related to and interacts with personality fac tors and learning strategies, which will be discussed below.
Categories of cognitive style are commonly identified as pairs of traits on opposite ends of a continuum; individual learners are rarely thought to be at one extreme or the other, but are located somewhere along the continuum between the poles. Researchers typically correlate individuals’ ratings on different dimensions of cognitive style with various measures of L2 proficiency. Some of the traits which have been explored are listed in Table 4.4.
The field-dependent/field-independent (FD/FI) dimension is the one most frequently referred to in SLA-related research (reviewed in Chapelle and Green 1992). This distinction was originally introduced by Witkin et al. (1954) in a study of how individual perceptual differences relate to general cognitive processes, and was only later applied to language learning. A commonly used criterion for FD/FI is performance on an embedded figures test, which requires subjects to find a simple shape within a more complex design. Individuals who have difficulty discerning a figure apart from the ground (or field) within which it is embedded are judged to be relatively FD; individuals who have no difficulty with this test are judged relatively FI. The cognitive tasks are to disassemble or restructure visual stimuli and to rely on internal versus external referents. As this dimension has been applied to learning, individuals who are FD are also considered more global and holistic in processing new information; individuals who are FI are considered more particularistic and analytic. FD learners are thought to achieve more success in L2 acquisition via highly contextualized interactive communicative experiences because that fits better with their holistic “cognitive style,” and FI learners to profit more from decontextualized analytic approaches and formal instruction. In terms of an Information Processing model of learning, FI learners may have better attentional capacities (Skehan 1998). This distinction has been metaphorically extended by some investigators to cultural differences between whole national or ethnic populations, with highly questionable results.
Another partially related dimension is preference for deductive or inductive processing. Deductive (or “top-down”) processing begins with a prediction or rule and then applies it to interpret particular instances of input. Inductive (or “bottom-up”) processing begins with examining input to discover some pattern and then formulates a generalization or rule that accounts for it, and that may then in turn be applied deductively. An inductive cognitive style is related to the linguistic-analytic ability discussed above as one component of language aptitude, which does appear to contribute to success in L2 learning in either naturalistic or instructed circumstances.
Some evidence can also be found for differential success in relation to relative focus on meaning versus focus on form. In a study of exception ally talented L2 learners, for instance, Novoa, Fein, and Obler (1988) found that they possess “a cognitive style whereby subjects are able to focus on form perhaps better than meaning (but certainly in conjunction with meaning)” (Obler and Hannigan 1996 :512–13).
Another difference in cognitive style may be related to age. Ellen Bialystok (1997) suggests that L2 learners have two options when adapting their existing categories of linguistic structure to adequately represent the structure of the new language. One option is extending the existing categories to include new instances from L2: in phonological structure, an L2 sound which is actually slightly different from a similar sound in L1 may be identified as the same as the L1 sound and pronounced with that value, resulting in a foreign accent. The second option is creating new categories: in phonological structure, this would mean recognizing the slightly different L2 sound as phonetically different, and learning to keep it distinct from the similar (and often functionally equivalent) L1 sound. For example, both English and Spanish have a sound that we can broadly represent as [t], but the English [t] is usually pronounced with the tongue touching the bony ridge that is behind the teeth (the alveolar ridge), while the Spanish [t] is usually pronounced with the tongue further forward, touching the back of the teeth. If English L1 learners of Spanish L2 fail to perceive the difference and produce these sounds as “the same,” this will contribute to an English accent in their Spanish. If they recognize the difference and learn to develop motor control of the tongue to produce the Spanish [t] differently, they will sound more like a native speaker of that language. (The reverse, of course, contributes to a Spanish accent in L2 learners’ English.)
Bialystok claims that adults tend to extend existing categories (i.e. not notice small differences), while children notice differences and tend to create new categories accordingly. She suggests that this difference in cognitive style, rather than a critical or sensitive period, may account for why many people consider children to be superior in L2 learning. Since the age–style relationship is a tendency rather than absolute, children might pronounce L2 with a foreign accent (but be less likely to) and adults might achieve native-like pronunciation (but are less likely to do so). However, as we will see in the next chapter, children might intentionally choose to adopt nonnative pronunciation in their L2 because of social factors.
Another dimension sometimes considered as a matter of cognitive style is sensory preference for processing input: visual, auditory, kinesthetic (movement-oriented), or tactile (touch-oriented). Apparently no one means of processing has an inherent advantage over others, but L2 learners reportedly feel more comfortable when teachers’ instructional strategies are congruent with their sensory preference. This dimension may also be age-related, with younger learners showing more preference for kinesthetic and tactile modalities (cited in Reid 1987).
Criticisms of research on cognitive style and the implications which are drawn for L2 instruction have been primarily directed at the FD/FI distinction and related continua. One criticism is that the embedded figure test used to assess traits is not applicable to language acquisition and therefore is not relevant. Another concerns analytic procedures which often correlate a single cognitive trait and a single language proficiency measure without taking other influencing factors and complexities of performance into account. Still other criticisms concern lack of consideration given to differences in cultural background, prior educational experiences, possibilities of change over time, and stages of language learning. While cognitive style is interesting, and is ultimately likely to prove significant in some way in explaining differential L2 learning outcomes, we must be cautious in drawing conclusions at the present time.
Personality
Personality factors are sometimes added to cognitive style in characterizing more general learning style. Speculation and research in SLA has included the following factors, also often characterized as endpoints on continua, as shown in Table 4.5. As with cognitive styles, most of us are somewhere in between the extremes. Boldface print in this figure indicates positive correlation with success in L2 learning.
Research in this area is almost always correlational: individuals are assessed for some personality trait (usually using questionnaires and scales), and the strength of the relationship between that score and the result of an L2 language proficiency measure is calculated. Evidence in some cases is very limited or contradictory.
Anxiety has received the most attention in SLA research, along with lack of anxiety as an important component of self-confidence (see Horwitz 2001 for a review). Anxiety correlates negatively with measures of L2 proficiency including grades awarded in foreign language classes, meaning that higher anxiety tends to go with lower levels of success in L2 learning. In addition to self-confidence, lower anxiety may be manifested by more risk-taking or more adventuresome behaviors.
We need to keep some complex issues in mind when we read about or interpret research on anxiety:
(1) The direction of cause and effect is uncertain. Lower anxiety levels might very well facilitate language learning; conversely, however, more successful language learners might feel less anxious in situations of L2 learning and use, and thus be more self-confident.
(2) Instructional context or task influences anxiety level and reporting. For example, foreign language classes or tests which require oral performance normally generate more anxiety than do those in which production is in writing. Small-group performance generates less anxiety than whole-class activity.
(3) Although personality factors are defined as individual traits, systematic cultural differences are found between groups of learners. For example, oral performance in English classes generates relatively more anxiety for Korean students (Truitt 1995) than for Turkish students (Kunt 1997). This may be because of cultural differences in concepts of “face” (i.e. projecting a positive self-image; see Liu 2001), or because of cultural differences in classroom practices and experiences.
(4) Low anxiety and high self-confidence increase student motivation to learn, and make it more likely that they will use the L2 outside of the classroom setting. It is therefore not clear whether more successful learning is directly due to lower anxiety, or to a higher level of motivation and more social interaction.
On a partially related personality dimension, introverts generally do better in school and extroverts talk more. Some SLA researchers have hypothesized that extroverts would be more successful language learners, but there is no clear support for the advantage of either trait. Nearly syn onymous pairs of terms found in the research literature are “inner- directed/other-directed” and “reflective/impulsive.” Most personality studies have involved adult subjects, but when I explored this dimension with children from several countries, I found no significant correlation between either trait and academic achievement measures of English (Saville-Troike 1984). I did find that among the Japanese L1 girls in my study, higher achievers on the academic language measures tended to be less passive, less compliant, and less dependent in coping with the challenges of learning English. However, these trends did not hold true for other L1 groups (Arabic, Hebrew, Icelandic, Korean, Polish, and Spanish), nor for Japanese boys.
Little study has been carried out on other personality factors in relation to differences in L2 outcomes, but there is some evidence that being imaginative or creative, empathetic, and tolerant of ambiguity is advantageous.
Learning strategies
Differential L2 outcomes may also be affected by individuals’ learning strategies: i.e. the behaviors and techniques they adopt in their efforts to learn a second language. Selection from among possible strategies is often a conscious choice on the part of learners, but it is strongly influenced by the nature of their motivation, cognitive style, and personality, as well as by specific contexts of use and opportunities for learning. The other variables we considered earlier in this section – age, sex, and aptitude – also play a role in strategy selection. Many learning strategies are culturally based: individuals learn how to learn as part of their socialization experiences, and strategies they acquire in relation to other domains are commonly transferred to language learning, which may take place under very different circumstances, sometimes within a foreign educational system.
Not all strategies are equal: some are inherently more effective than others, and some more appropriate in particular contexts of learning or for individuals with differing aptitudes and learning styles. One goal in SLA research has been to identify which strategies are used by relatively good language learners, with the hope that such strategies can be taught or otherwise applied to enhance learning.
A typology of language-learning strategies which is widely used in SLA was formulated by O’Malley and Chamot (Chamot 1987):
• Metacognitive: e.g. previewing a concept or principle in anticipation of a learning activity; deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of input; rehearsing linguistic components which will be required for an upcoming language task; self-monitoring of progress and knowledge states.
• Cognitive: e.g. repeating after a language model; translating from L1; remembering a new word in L2 by relating it to one that sounds the same in L1, or by creating vivid images; guessing meanings of new material through inferencing.
• Social/affective: e.g. seeking opportunities to interact with native speakers; working cooperatively with peers to obtain feedback or pool information; asking questions to obtain clarification; requesting repetition, explanation, or examples.
Metacognitive strategies are those which attempt to regulate language learning by planning and monitoring; cognitive strategies make use of direct analysis or synthesis of linguistic material; social/affective strategies involve interaction with others.
Self-reporting is a common means for collecting information on what strategies learners select, usually with interviews and questionnaires about what they have done or usually do (retrospective reports), or with think-aloud activities which have learners talk about what they are doing while engaged in an L2 learning task (concurrent reports). Self-reports are also collected by asking learners to keep journals or diaries and to record what they are conscious of doing in their effort to learn. Because the strategies used by adults are usually not visible, observation has limited value, but it is often used to collect information on children. Some researchers (e.g. Kleifgen 1986) have also used play-back techniques with children, where they videotape learners working at L2 tasks and then interview them in their L1 about what strategies they were using along with replaying the videotape for them. Recording private speech with unobtrusive wireless microphones is also a profitable data-collection procedure with children who naturally talk to themselves while working at cognitively demanding tasks (e.g. Saville-Troike 1988). Some of my subjects as young as three years in age softly repeated the new language forms after others, drilled themselves with self-created pattern practices, translated L2 forms to L1, rehearsed what they were going to say before speaking, and played games that were based on sounds of the new language. (Examples from this research are included in the next chapter.)
Age can have an influence on learning strategies; for example, children tend to use more repetition whereas adults use more synthesis. Similarly the sex of learners can be significant, as females tend to use relatively more social/affective strategies than males, as well as more metacognitive strategies in listening tasks. A range of findings show “good learners” to have the following major traits (Ellis 2008 :708):
• Concern for language form (but also attention to meaning)
• Concern for communication
• Active task approach
• Awareness of the learning process
• Capacity to use strategies flexibly in accordance with task requirements
As with other correlational research, it is difficult to establish causality, or even directionality: for example, “good learners” may approach language tasks more actively because they are more proficient (not more proficient because they are more active), or because they are more self-confident.
In spite of the extensive research documenting “good learner” traits, the extent to which strategic behavior can be initiated or changed with training is still not known. One problem in determining this, as noted above, is whether strategies are the cause or the result of L2 learning success. Another problem is the complex of other variables which must be taken into account. This “problem” is at the heart of “context” for Complexity Theory, a relatively recent theoretical focus in SLA which is discussed in this chapter. Inclusion of strategy training for SLA is generally viewed positively in any case, with the reasonable expectation that heightened awareness of strategic possibilities will beneficially inform L2 learners and may empower them to take control of their own learning (e.g. Oxford 1992; Jones 1998). A danger is that a researcher or instructor may have preconceived ideas as to “what works” and disrupt a student’s successful strategy by imposing or encouraging a different one. (For a comprehensive overview of research on aptitude, motivation, cognitive style, personality, and learning strategies, see Dörnyei 2005, 2006).
الاكثر قراءة في Linguistics fields
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
