Explaining Learners Individual Differences

Taken from:

Ellis, Rod. (1994) The Study Of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press

Individual differences: Three different surveys.

There is a veritable plethora of individual learner variables which researchers have identified
as influencing learning outcomes. The following table lists the main variables mentioned in
three surveys. It demonstrates the importance attached to individual differences (IDs) by
different researchers, and also the different ways they classify them.

A framework for research

Three sets of interrelating variables are identified. The first set consists of IDs, which are of
three main types. Learners have been shown to have beliefs about language learning.
Horwitz (1987a) and Wenden (1987a) have shown that learners have strong, pre-conceived
ideas about such issues as the importance of language aptitude, the nature of language
learning, and the strategies that are likely to work best. Second, learners have been shown to
be strongly influenced by their affective states (see Bailey 1983). Some learners are fearful of
starting to learn an L2, while some are confident. Some develop anxiety as a result of their

1
competitive natures and their perceptions of whether they are progressing or not. Both
learners' attitudes and their affective states are subject to change as a result of experience.
Third, there are various general factors. These constitute major areas of influence on learning
and can be ranged along a continuum according to how mutable they are. For example,
language aptitude is generally considered a stable factor, not readily influenced by the
environment (Carroll 1981), while certain types of motivation are likely to change as a result
of the learner's learning experiences (see Berwick and Ross 1989; Crookes and Schmidt
1990). The general factors also vary according to the extent of the learners' control over
them. For example, learners can do nothing about their age, but they may be able to change
their learning style (Thomas and Harri-Augstein 1990). Clearly, beliefs, affective states, and
general factors are interrelated. For example, learners' beliefs and their affective responses to
learning situations may be influenced by personality variables. One of the goals of ID
research is to identify the nature of these interrelationships.
The second set of variables consists of the different strategies that a learner employs to
learn the L2. These will be considered in detail in the following chapter, together with studies
of the `good language learner'. The third set concerns language learning outcomes. These
can be considered in terms of overall L2 proficiency, achievement with regard to L2
performance on a particular task, and rate of acquisition. Learning outcomes constitute the
'products' of the acquisitional process.

Learners' beliefs about language learning

Language learners-especially adults-bring a variety of beliefs to the classroom. According to

Hosenfeld (1978), students form `mini theories' of L2 learning. There has been relatively little
research into the nature of these theories and even less about how learners' beliefs affect
language learning.
Wenden (1986a; 1987a) reports a study of 25 adults enrolled in a part-time advanced level
class at an American university. She elicited their views about language learning in a semi-
structured interview and then summarized them in terms of twelve explicit statements,
grouped into three general categories. The first category is `use of the language'. It includes
beliefs relating to the importance of `learning in a natural way'-practising, trying to think in
the L2, and living and studying in an environment where the L2 is spoken. The second
category concerns beliefs relating to `learning about the language'. Learners with beliefs in
this category emphasized learning grammar and vocabulary, enrolling in a language class,
receiving feedback on errors they made, and being mentally active. The third category is
labelled `importance of personal factors'. It includes beliefs about the feelings that facilitate or
inhibit learning, self-concept, and aptitude for learning. Wenden found that her learners varied
enormously in their beliefs, but that each learner seemed to have a preferred set of beliefs
that belonged to one of the three categories.

2
Learners' affective states

Learners, in particular classroom learners, react to the learning situations they find
themselves in a variety of affective ways. For example, F. Schumann (Schumann and
Schumann 1977) reports being unable to settle down to studying Farsi and Arabic (in Iran
and Tunisia) until she had achieved order and comfort in her physical surroundings. Bailey
(1980) discusses a `classroom crisis' that occurred when her French teacher administered a
test that the class considered unfair. One of the beginner learners of German that Ellis and
Rathbone (1987) studied reported a period during which she was unable to learn any German
because of a boyfriend problem. These and other studies testify to the complexity and
dynamic nature of learners' affective states and the influence these have on their ability to
concentrate on learning. Learners, it seems, need to feel secure and to be free of stress
before they can focus on the learning task-the importance of which is directly acknowledged
in humanistic approaches to language teaching (see Moskowitz 1978).

Anxiety
A distinction can be made between trait anxiety, state anxiety, and situation specific anxiety.
Scovel (1978), drawing on work in general psychology, defines trait anxiety as `a more
permanent predisposition to be anxious. It is perhaps best viewed as an aspect of personality.
State anxiety can be defined as apprehension that is experienced at a particular moment in
time as a response to a definite situation (Spielberger 1983). It is a combination of trait and
situation-specific anxiety. This latter type consists of the anxiety which is aroused by a
specific type of situation or event such as public speaking, examinations, or class
participation.

General factors

Age
There is a widely-held lay belief that younger L2 learners generally do better than older
learners. This is supported by the critical period hypothesis, according to which there is a fixed
span of years during which language learning can take place naturally and effortlessly, and
after which it is not possible to be completely successful. Penfield and Roberts (1959), for
example, argued that the optimum period for language acquisition falls within the first ten
years of life, when the brain retains its plasticity. Initially, this period was equated with the
period taken for lateralization of the language function to the left side of the brain to be
completed. Work on children and adults who had experienced brain injuries or operations
indicated that damage to the left hemisphere caused few speech disorders and was rapidly
repaired in the case of children but not adults (Lenneberg 1967). Although subsequent work
(for example, Krashen 1973; Whitaker, Bub, and Leventer 1981) has challenged the precise
age when lateralization takes place, resulting in doubts about the neurological basis of the
critical period hypothesis, the age question has continued to attract the attention of
researchers.

Language aptitude
In an article reviewing early aptitude research, Carroll (1981) defines general aptitude as
`capability of learning a task', which depends on `some combination of more or less enduring
characteristics of the learner'. In the case of language aptitude the capability involves a special
propensity for learning an L2.
The general claim that language aptitude constitutes a relevant factor in L2 acquisition entails,
in Carrol's view, a number of more specific claims. The first is that aptitude is separate from
achievement. Carroll argues that they are conceptually distinct and also that they can be
distinguished empirically (by demonstrating that there is no relationship between measures of
aptitude and measures of proficiency at the beginning of a language program, but that there is
a relationship at the end of the program). Second, aptitude must be shown to be separate
from motivation. On this point, however, there is some disagreement, as Pimsleur (1966)
treats motivation as an integral part of aptitude. Carroll argues that research by Lambert and

3
Gardner (reviewed later in this chapter) has consistently shown that aptitude and motivation
are eparate factors. Third, aptitude must be seen as a stable factor, perhaps even innate. In
support of this claim, Carroll refers to studies which show that learners' aptitude is difficult to
alter through training. Fourth, aptitude is to be viewed not as a prerequisite for L2 acquisition
(as all learners, irrespective of their aptitude, may achieve a reasonable level of proficiency),
but as a capacity that enhances the rate and ease of learning. Aptitude tests, therefore,
provide a prediction of rate of learning.
Finally, Carroll argues that aptitude must be found to be distinct from general intelligence. He
refers again to research by Lambert and Gardner which has shown that aptitude and
intelligence measurements are not related. There are doubts about this claim, however.
Pimsleur considers intelligence an important part of aptitude. Oller and Perkins (1978) have
also argued that verbal intelligence is a major factor as it is needed to answer tests of the kind
used to measure aptitude and language proficiency and thus is a common factor to both. In
contrast, although finding significant correlations between scores on a verbal intelligence test
and a test of foreign language proficiency, Skehan (1990) argues that there are clear
differences between them. Similarly, Obler (1989), in a study of one exceptional learner who
had a record of `picking up' languages with great rapidity and ease, concluded that `generally
superior cognitive functioning is not necessary for exceptional L2 acquisition' (1989: 153). We
will return to the question of intelligence later.

Learning styles
The second general factor we will consider is learning style. The idea of learning style comes
from general psychology. It refers to the characteristic ways in which individuals orientate to
problem-solving. Keefe (1979) defines learning style as:
... the characteristic cognitive, affective and physiological behaviours that serve as relatively
stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning
environment ... Learning style is a consistent way of functioning, that reflects underlying
causes of behaviour.

Motivation
Language teachers readily acknowledge the importance of learners' motivation, not
infrequently explaining their own sense of failure with reference to their students' lack of
motivation. SLA research also views motivation as a key factor in L2 learning. There have been
differences, however, in the way in which teachers and researchers have typically
conceptualized `motivation' (see Crookes and Schmidt 1990).

In an attempt to characterize a non-theoretical view of motivation, Skehan (1989) puts

forward four hypotheses:
1 The Intrinsic Hypothesis: motivation derives from an inherent interest in the learning tasks
the learner is asked to perform.
2 The Resultative Hypothesis: learners who do well will persevere, those who do not do well
will be discouraged and try less hard.
3 The Internal Cause Hypothesis: the learner brings to the learning situation a certain quantity
of motivation.
4 The Carrot and Stick Hypothesis: external influences and incentives will affect the strength
of the learner's motivation.
These hypotheses have their correlates in the study of motivation in SLA research, but one of
them, (3), has received the lion's share of researchers' attention. We will begin, therefore, by
examining the research which has addressed this hypothesis.

Integrative motivation
According to Gardner's socio-educational model (which we examined in some detail in Chapter
6), an integrative orientation involves an interest in learning an L2 because of `a sincere and
personal interest in the people and culture represented by the other language group' (Lambert
1974: 98). It contrasts with an instrumental orientation, which concerns `the practical value

4
and advantages of learning a new language'. `Orientation', however, is not the same as
motivation, which is defined by Gardner as `the combination of effort plus desire to achieve
the goal of learning the language plus favourable attitudes towards learning the language'
(1985: 10). Thus, whereas 'orientation' refers to the underlying reasons for studying an L2,
`motivation' refers to the directed effort individual learners make to learn the language. Over
the years, Gardner has become increasingly critical of research that focuses narrowly on the
role of orientation in L2 learning, arguing that the effects of learners' orientations are
mediated by their motivation-that is, whereas orientation and L2 achievement are only
indirectly related, motivation and achievement are directly related.

Personality
In the eyes of many language teachers, the personality of their students constitutes a major
factor contributing to success or failure in language learning. Griffiths (1991 b), for example,
conducted a survey of 98 teachers of ESL/EFL in England, Japan, and Oman in order to
determine how important they rated personality and two other IDs. He reports a mean rating
of 4 on a five-point scale-slightly higher than the rating for intelligence and just below that for
memory. Learners also consider personality factors to be important. Of the `good language
learners' investigated by Naiman et al. (1978) 31 per cent believed that extroversion was
helpful in acquiring oral skills.
Some personality factors found to have an impact on language learning are described below,
along with the results the have produced in different studies

5
Discussion

• The framework for research in IDs suggests three main areas that constitute three
interrelated variables that may affect an individual’s language learning process. How
should language teachers tackle them in order to help students engage in a really
fruitful learning process?
• Taking as a basis the three categories proposed by Wenden (1986) develop some
statements to reveal the learners believes your group has as language students.
• Teacher’s awareness about the impact of students’ affective state in learning may
directly influence such aspects as: classroom activities, curriculum development,
materials choice, and testing and classroom assessment among others. Choose the
factor you consider more relevant and explain how you would face it in order to help
your students.
• Which of the three kinds of anxiety you think is more likely to interfere with language
learning. What strategies would you recommend to help students turn anxiety into a
beneficial tool for learning?
• What arguments may you provide to dispel the old belief represented in this saying:
“an old parrot won’t learn to speak”?
• Based upon the paper and your previous knowledge of the matter, define and explain
the role of: aptitude, motivation, intelligence and achievement in language learning.
How do those aspects interrelate?
• According to the figure shown at the end of the paper, how influential do you think
personality is in the language learning process. How may the language teacher benefit
from this awareness?
• Draw a conclusion you would take as relevant from the awareness language teachers
need to have about Ids and their role in LL.