Second Language Learning – Factors in Determining Individual Progress

Second Language Learning – Factors in Determining Individual Progress

Christopher Stern

From classroom and personal experience, language teachers and learners are clearly aware that individual language learners progress at different rates and in different ways.  (Aside from age, which has been discussed in the previous paper for this course), a number of factors come into play in accounting for these differences.  In this paper I will examine the following factors as they relate to individual language learning ability:  personality, previous language learning and classroom experiences,   beliefs, motivation, learning and communication strategies, behavior, and L1 proximity and interference.

Beginning with the most essential and possibly immutable factor, we have personality.  Learners will have a wide range of personality characteristics, which will influence their thinking, feeling, and behavior both inside and outside the classroom.  Among these, one author notes the opposing characteristics of: “introversion / extroversion, reflectiveness / impulsiveness, field independence / dependence, self-confidence, self-concept, self-efficacy, creativity, anxiety, and motivation (extrinsic / intrinsic).” (Cohen, 1996: 10)  Across this spectrum of personality types, it would seem obvious that those on the shy or introverted side would tend to engage less with speakers of the target language, not to mention their L1.  Researchers in the field have made such observations.  “Shy people are usually less inclined to enter into casual contacts with strangers.  They are less likely to avail themselves of opportunities to interact with members of the target language group.”  (Hinenoya and Gatbonton, 2000: 5)  On the other hand, it has often been noted that more typically successful language learners display an integrative disposition – “a positive interpersonal / affective disposition towards the L2 group and the desire to interact with and even become similar to valued members of that community.” (Dörnyei, 5)

In addition to personality, our feelings about previous language learning experiences influence our motivation, and subsequently, behavior.  Dörnyei has stated as much, saying “the subjective reasons to which we attribute our past successes and failures considerably shape our motivational disposition.” (Dörnyei, 8 – 9)  Furthermore, Dörnyei contends that “the classroom environment – and, more generally, the contextual surroundings of action” have a strong motivational influence.  He goes on to elaborate that course-specific components, such as the teacher, methodology, selected course materials and activities, as well as the specific group of students all play a part in shaping the motivational profiles of learners.  (Dörnyei, 11)

Very closely related to, and often contingent upon, one’s previous language learning experiences, are the beliefs that a learner may hold regarding their own language learning capability and the level of difficulty of the target language to be acquired.  This is especially true for many Asian learners of English, whose primary English language classroom experience may be that of teaching through a non-communicative method, with an extensive focus on grammar.  Such students often come away from their learning (or non-learning) experiences with two distinct beliefs intact:  1) with regard to language learning, they are somehow incompetent, and 2) English is a diabolically difficult language.  While some learners can make progress despite this type of experience, perhaps because of other factors outlined here, or because of secondary language learning experiences, addressing and challenging these beliefs are often the necessary first goals of the teacher in a more communicative language learning environment.

Motivation is classically divided into two forms – extrinsic and intrinsic.  Those learners who can be identified as having strong intrinsic motivation to learn a language will tend to achieve better results.  Extrinsic motivation, being based on external goals, and by which language is merely the means to their end, is nonetheless often a strong force in the acquisition of language.  According to Hinenoya and Gatbonton (2000), who use the terms integrative (intrinsic) and instrumental (extrinsic), “the classic finding of these studies is that the higher the learners’ desire to interact and integrate with the target group (integrative motivation) or to find employment, seek advancement, and so on (instrumental motivation), the better their performance in their course work and the higher their proficiency levels” (Hinenoya and Gatbonton, 2000: 1)

Different learners will approach both their learning and their communication in the TL in different ways.  Some will do so with more awareness and expertise than others.  While, as Griffiths notes, it is practically impossible to distinguish between whether the learner’s motivation in certain circumstances is to enhance learning or communication, more adept learners employ specific strategies.  (Griffiths, 2004: 3)  These strategies have been outlined differently by different authors, but I find Oxford’s six groups of learning strategies the most useful delineation.  These are:  memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. (from Oxford, as outlined in Griffiths, 2004: 4)  Without going into further detail, it seems apparent that what is at issue is levels of awareness – the greater the cognitive and affective awareness the learner brings to the process of learning and language use in communication, the greater their success in language learning will be.

While some authors have differentiated between conscious behaviors (as strategies) and unconscious behaviors (as processes) with regards to learning (Cohen, 1996: 6), if we consider behavior as a generalized whole, referring to the set of activities in which an individual engages, it becomes obvious that certain kinds of behavior – socializing, attentive listening, etc. will lead to more language learning than others – sky gazing, Nintendo, etc..  It would seem that an individual’s behavior derives from and in a sense becomes the manifestation of all of the previously discussed factors.

With regard to L1 – TL proximity, learners of a language background which is closer to the target language (e.g. German learners of English), will typically have an advantage over learners whose L1 is linguistically more distant from the L2 (e.g. Thai learners of English).  This position has been justified in studies of the effect of previously know languages on the language learning process.  As quoted from Ringbom in Gass and Selinker (2008), “Similarities[between previously learned languages and the TL], both cross-linguistic and interlinguistic, function as pegs on which the learner can hang new information by making use of already existing knowledge, thereby facilitating learning.”  (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 137)  This further implies that learners who have already had the experience of acquiring one or more L2 will have subsequently easier experiences of acquiring an additional L2.  In fact, Klein, as reviewed in Gass and Selinker (2008), “found that multilinguals out-performed monolinguals in both [lexical and syntactic] types of learning.” (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 153)  This appears to be the case regardless of the proximity between the previously learned L2 and the subsequent TL:  the practice of having already learned an L2 is itself a transferrable skill.  It is likely that such a previous learning success has an impact on the learner’s belief system as well.  (Related to the topic of linguistic knowledge, it should also be noted that learners bring various amounts of background knowledge to their learning experience.  This too, serves as an aid to their language learning success, in that more background knowledge gives them a greater range of schemata to activate and reference in the process of language learning.)

Finally, L1 interference (also called language transfer) is a common impediment in the acquisition of any language.  Gass and Selinker (2008) summarize that “there are three interacting factors in the determination of language transfer: (a) a learner’s psychotypology, that is, how a learner organizes his or her NL; (b) perception of NL-TL distance; and (c) actual knowledge of the TL.” (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 150)  Interestingly,   the perception of NL-TL distance can function conversely to expectation – it was found that “when great similarities exist between the L1 and the L2, the learner may doubt that these similarities are real.” (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 138)

In conclusion, there are a number of factors which differentiate learners with regard to the degree of success they will achieve in learning a second language - personality, previous language learning and classroom experiences, beliefs, motivation, learning and communication strategies, behavior, and L1 proximity and interference.  It should be noted however that with the possible exceptions of personality and previous experiences, none of these factors are immutable.  Most can be changed:  motivation can be developed, and often goes through a natural waxing and waning; strategies and behavior can be achieved through specific training; and even L1 interference can be overcome through the application of attention and intensive study.

Sources:

¨  Cohen, A. (1996).  Second Language Learning and Use Strategies:  Clarifying the Issues.  Minneapolis:  Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.

¨  Dörnyei, Z.  (no date).  Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning:  Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications.  Nottingham:  University of Nottingham.

¨  Gass, S. & Selinker, L.  (2008). Second Language Acquisition:  An Introductory Course (3^rd edition).  New York:  Routledge.

¨  Griffiths, C. (2004).  Language Learning Strategies: Theory and Research.  Auckland:  School of Foundation Studies.

¨  Hinenoya, K. & Gatbonton, E. (2000).  ‘Ethnocentrism, Cultural Traits, Beliefs, and Proficiency:  A Japanese Sample.’  The Modern Language Journal 84 no2, 225 - 40.

¨  Nikolov, M. (2000).  ‘The Critical Period Hypothesis Reconsidered: Successful adult learners of Hungarian and English.’  IRAL 38 (2), 109 – 24.