INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

CONTENTS

In Module 1 unit 5, you learnt about social influences in language learning.

You also learnt that one of the assignments of the applied linguist is trying to
examine or determine what goes on in the mind of the learner in relation to the
environment. In this unit, you will learn a few things about how people learn
languages and the kinds of things that can be responsible for success or failure
in language learning.

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 Level of success
3.2 Methods used to investigate Individual Differences
3.3 Factors Responsible for Individual Differences
3.4 Propensities for Language Learning
3.4.1 Learning style
3.5 Motivation
3.6 Anxiety
3.7 Personality
3.8 Willingness to communicate
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor marked assignments
7.0 References and further reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

It has been observed that learners pass through a lot of developmental

processes and stages especially while learning a second language. Some of
these processes are said to be based on things that are internal to the learners.
That is why some scholars have raised the questions about the role of
instruction in second language learning. Even though scholars agree about the
need for instructions in language learning, they also note that individual
differences matter a lot while learning a language because it determines what
the learner does with the input.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

65
 - describe the factors responsible for individual differences
- discuss briefly what is meant by propensities in language learning

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

In this section, we shall discuss the factors responsible for different levels of
attainment or success in language learning. These are: methods used to
investigate language learning, factors responsible for individual differences,
propensities for language learning, motivation, anxiety, personality and
willingness to communicate.

3.1 Level of success

The level of success that an individual attains in language learning differs in
both first and second languages. Scholars have noted that even children vary in
their rate of acquisition but in most cases they achieve full competence in their
mother tongue. With adult learners of L2, only a few achieve a native-like
competence. Ellis (2006) notes the following as being responsible for the
different levels of attainment – social, cognitive and affective.

Many scholars or researchers in language studies have worked on individual

differences in language teaching and learning. Some of these are Horwitz,
2000, Carroll and Sapon, 1959, etc.

In her research on learner’s differences in second language learning between

1920s and 1970s, Horwitz (2000) in Ellis (2006:525) notes that the changes in
labels used to refer to individual differences. She notes that before, terms like
good and bad, intelligent and dull, motivated and unmotivated were used but
have now given way to terms such as integrative, instrumentally motivated,
anxious and comfortable, field independent and, field sensitive, auditory and
visual. All these terms are said to reflect a radical shift in the way learners are
viewed.

Horwitz notes that in the past, the primary concern of individual differences in
applied linguistics was to determine which learner should be selected for
foreign language instruction. This is another way of predicting which learners

66
would succeed if there were language aptitude tests. Ellis (2006) notes the
growing interest in individual differences since 1970s and concludes that the
task facing researchers is not just to identify the psycholinguistic processes
involved in L2 acquisition or what motivates the individual learner selectivity
but how selectivity and processes interact in the performance of different tasks.

3.2 Methods used to investigate Individual Differences

Ellis (2000:526) notes that a number of quantitative methods have been used to
investigate individual differences and notes that the favoured one is a survey
questionnaire consisting of like-scaled items (items arranged in a questionnaire
that learners are expected to respond to) that will enable learners to report on
some aspects of their language learning e.g. the Group Embedded Figures Test
(GEFT) which is an established test from the field of psychology. The data
obtained from the questionnaires and tests are then submitted to correlational
analysis (Ellis 2006:527). Ellis notes the purpose of such tests as “identification
of relationships among individual difference variables or relationship between
a specific factor such as motivation and a measure of L2 achievement or
proficiency.” He notes that much depends on the validity/reliability of such
questionnaires. The questions that linguists ask are. Do they measure what they
purport to measure? And do they do so consistently?

He notes that considerable efforts have gone into the development of

questionnaires. Ellis (2006: 529) also reported on the findings of Spolsky
(2000) on Wallace Lambert who originated the use of motivation
questionnaires in 1950. Wallace Lambert is reputed to have said that “the best
way to learn about someone’s integrative motivation was probably to sit quietly
and chat with him over a bottle of wine for an evening.” Ellis notes that the
limitations of qualitative approaches have led to the argument in favour of
qualitative methods. Spolsky suggests the use of both quantitative and
qualitative methods such as interviews and learner’s autobiographical
narratives. An example of such is Schumann (1997) but Ellis (2006:529)
reports that it is time consuming.

67
3.3 Factors Responsible for Individual Differences
In the language aptitude review of the factors responsible for language
learning, it is noted that age is not included. Ellis (2006) argues that it is
probably because ‘age’ does not belong to any of the categories listed for
differences by the researchers but it is seen to potentially affect learner’s
abilities, propensities, cognitions and actions as do other factors such as
previous learning experiences and learning situations. Age is also seen to affect
the actual psychological processes involved in learning, making younger
learners able to access a language acquisition device while older learners rely
on general cognitive learning strategies. Ellis notes that the role played by age
in L2 acquisition demands an entirely separate treatment which should be
handled on its own. You will find discussions on age in some other units in the
course.

Three basic things have been highlighted by earlier scholars under cognitive
abilities for language learning. These are intelligence, language aptitude and
memory. Shekan (1990) administered language aptitude tests on children in the
Bristol language project and found that language aptitude was strongly related
to measures of foreign language ability. Skehan explained that the aptitude tests
measured an underlying language learning capacity. Sasaki’s (1996) study also
suggest that language aptitude i.e. ability to analyse linguistic structure and
intelligence are related. The work of Sparks, Ganschow and Patton (1995) also
suggests that language aptitude was one of the best predictions of the grades
achieved by school foreign language learners. Carroll (1995) identified four
aspects of language aptitude as
Phonemic coding ability ( i.e the ability to code foreign sounds in a way
that can be remembered later)
Grammatical sensitivity (i.e the ability to recognise the grammatical
functions of words in sentences)
Inductive learning ability (i.e the ability to identify patterns of
correspondence and relationships involving form and meaning)

68
 Rote learning ability (i.e the ability to form and remember associations
between stimuli)

Some other scholars such as Skehan (1998), Grigorenko, Stenber and Ehrman
(2000) have suggested for the modifications to Carroll’s four part model.
Stenberg (2002) however suggests that theory of successful intelligence which
though developed through general research on native speaking students could
also be applicable to L2 learning. In his theory, he distinguished between three
types of aptitude: analytical intelligence, creative intelligence and practical
intelligence.

Self Assessment Exercise 1

What are the factors responsible for individual differences?

3.4 Propensities for Language Learning

Ellis notes that the major difference between abilities and propensities is that
abilities is a matter of innate endowment which is relatively fixed but
propensities involve personal preference and are more fluid.

3.4.1 Learning style

Willing (1989) notes that learning style is both cognitive and affective domain
and this refers to the individual’s preferred way of processing information and
of dealing with other people. He notes that in the field independent people see
things ‘holistically’ and so have difficulty in identifying the parts that make up
a whole. They find social interaction easy and pleasurable. On the other hand,
field independent people see things analytically by distinguishing the parts that
make up a whole (Ellis 2006:565). The hypothesis advanced for these two
types of L2 learning are that the field independent learners will do better in
informal language learning because of greater interpersonal skills while the
other will do better in formal learning because of their enhanced analytic skills.
Some other scholars have made use of other models of learning style which
involve more than a single dimension of style.

69
Red (1987) has devised models similar to the dependent and independent
learning styles. Skehan (1998) noted that the various styles identified by
different researchers can be grouped into three stages of acquisition – input,
central processing and output/retrieval) and also as to whether the focus is
information processing or knowledge representation.

3.5 Motivation
Ellis (2006) notes that motivation is more of an affective domain than a
cognitive factor. Teachers recognize the independence of motivation. Garder
(1985) differentiates between orientation and motivation. Orientation he noted
refers to the long-range goals that learners have for learning. There are two
broad types of orientation–‘integrative orientation’ and ‘instrumental
orientation’. Integrative orientation involves a wish to develop and understand
the target language and culture. Instrumental orientation involves a felt need to
learn the target language for some functional purpose. (e.g. obtaining a job).

Motivation, Ellis notes, was defined in terms of motivational intensity, that is,
effort of learners was prepared to make a learner learn a language and their
persistence on learning. This strategy notes that teachers might show some
orientations but be weakly and strongly motivated to achieve their goals.
3.6 Anxiety
There is this tendency to feel anxious when learning a new or another language.
Ellis sees the foreign language classroom as constituting a particular kind of
anxiety which he terms situational anxiety. He distinguishes this from the
classroom anxiety in general because of the kind of pressure that the learner of
a language experiences especially when proficiency is limited. This he says
constitutes threat to learner’s ‘language ego’. Learner’s diary studies were
examined while carrying out research on learner’s anxiety.

The research showed that the classroom learners experience anxiety especially
when it seems they are competing with others in the classroom. Studies have

70
shown that anxiety is related to L2 achievement. There has also been the
argument on whether anxiety is the cause of poor achievement.
Sparks et al (2000) found that students’ anxiety about learning L2 is a
consequence of their learning difficulties. Other scholars who worked on
anxiety are Gardner, (1994). Horwitz (2000) etc.

Ellis (2006) concludes that ‘Anxiety, like motivation is a learner factor that is
amenable to pedagogic influence. Spielman and Radnofsky however
researched on the fact that there is a positive side to anxiety.

3.7 Personality
Ellis notes that personality is a key factor for explaining individual differences
in L2 learning. Scholars have examined a lot of personality variables such as –
risk taking, tolerance of ambiguity, empathy, self esteem, but Ellis (1994) notes
that the aspect of personality that has received the greatest attention is
‘extraversion’. He notes that ‘extraversion’ is viewed as a factor having a
positive effect on the development of L2 basic interpersonal skills. He notes
that extraverted learners are likely to interact more and more easily with other
speakers of the L2. He notes that introspective learners may find it easier to
study L2 and thereby develop his/her cognitive academic language proficiency.

Ellis reports on Dewaele and Furnlham’s (1999) review of 30 students on

personality and concluded that ‘extraverts’ were found to be generally more
fluent than introverts in both L1 and L2. They also claim that extraverts are less
easily distracted when operating from short term memory, and are better
equipped physiologically to resist stress, and so have lower level of anxiety.
This helps them to pay more attention to learning tasks.

3.8 Willingness to communicate

This has to do with intention to initiate communication given a choice
(MacIntyre et al, 2001 pg. 369). Communicative language teaching places a
willingness on learning through communicating. MacIntyre et al, 2001 note
that learners with a strong willingness to communicate (WTC) are likely to

71
benefit more from CLT communicative language teaching, while those who are
not willing to communicate may learn better form traditional instructional
approaches.

Dornyei and Kormos (2000) also worked on WTC on Hungarian children and
found that Hungarian students’ WTC in the classroom was influenced by their
attitudes to the task. Ellis concludes by saying that teachers can enhance their
students’ WTC by ensuring they hold positive attitudes to the tasks they are
asked to perform (Ellis 2006:542).

Self Assessment Exercise 2

Describe the characteristics of extraverted and introspective learners and how

their learning of language can be facilitated.

4.0 CONCLUSION

We have been able to describe what is meant by individual differences in this

unit. We have also talked about the methods used to investigate individual
differences, factors responsible for individual differences, propensities for
language learning, learning style, anxiety, motivation etc.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have learnt that:

 The level of success that individuals attain in language learning differ in

both first and second languages.
 With adult learners of L2, only a few achieve native-like competence
 A number of quantitative methods have been used to investigate
individual differences
 Ellis 2006 notes that the favoured method is a survey questionnaire
consisting of likert-scaled items that will enable learners report on their
language learning
 Ellis notes that the major differences between abilities and propensities
is that abilities is a matter of innate endowment which is relatively fixed
but propensities involve personal preference and are more fluid
 Learning style is both in the cognitive and affective domains
 Personality is a key factor in explaining individual differences

6.0 TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENTS

72