Differences in learners

1. Age
There is a common belief that youngsters (children) are more successful lge
learners than adults. However, investigations in the field of SLA have shown
otherwise! It has been shown that age does not really affect the route to SLA. In
fact, both children and adults follow the same order of development while
acquiring a second language. Nevertheless, age is a factor that affects the rate of
learning. It has been proved that adolescents learn more rapidly than both children
and adults. The performance of adults was shown to be quicker than that of
children, but adolescents' performance was even quicker than that of adults.
Adolescents' fast performance appeared while acquiring grammar and vocabulary.
However, we have a slight problem here. Success in SLA has been seen from
many angles. It has been defined differently. Some define it as initial rate.
According to this view adults have an advantage as they have a greater initial rate
than children. Others see success as the ultimate achievement (final fulfilment).
Here youngsters have an advantage. Others see it in terms of the pronunciation
achieved, here children can achieve a native-like accent, but adults' performance
remains having the accent of foreigners. There are other studies that define success
differently, so one has to keep these differences in mind while evaluating success in
SLA.
Some of the main differences between children and adults in SLA are listed as
follows.
Age in SLA
Younger advantage Older advantage
 Brain plasticity  Learning capacity
 Not analytical  Analytic ability
 Fewer inhibitions (usually)  Pragmatic skills
 Weaker group identity  Greater knowledge of L1
 Simplified input more  Real-world knowledge
Tablelikely
1: Age in SLA

As it has been explained in earlier lessons (Language and the Brain) there is a
critical period for first language acquisition: children acquiring their first language
have only a limited number of years during which normal acquisition is possible.
Beyond that limit, physiological changes cause the brain to lose its plasticity, or
capacity to assume the new functions that learning language demands. Individuals

1
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). The critical period hypothesis.
According to Lenneberg who says that there is a critical period for both L1 and
L2. He argues that almost all L2 learners have this “foreign accent” if they do not
begin learning the language before the cut-off age. However, Seliger and Long
argue that there are multiple periods which affect different lge aspects: e.g. there is
a critical period related to the acquisition of phonology, and there is one for the
acquisition of syntax. They also suggest that these periods do not have absolute
cut-off points. They claim that 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 to be evident since some older learners can achieve a native-like
proficiency, although they constitute a minority of second language learners.
As it has just been said, young learners have a privilege of brain plasticity.
However, research has shown that adults have a privilege too. They learn faster in
initial stages. Adults have greater learning capacity: better memory for vocabulary.
Young children are said to be less analytic than adults. Some researchers
believe that this is for the best. Newport, for instance, suggests that "less is more".
That is to say, young learners develop a native-like intuition for grammar because
they are less analytic. They also say that adults are good in formal and instructional
contexts, but youngsters are good at informal and naturalistic settings. Other
researchers declare that a greater analytical ability leads to a better understanding
and application of the grammatical rules of the lge.
Other advantages that younger learners may have are being less inhibited
than older learners because they are not fully aware of their social identity. Also
they have no negative attitudes towards the lge or its native speakers.
Children are said to receive better, more natural, everyday life-input of L2.
This simplified input facilitates their learning and provides them with a more
accurate L2 data on which they build and base their learning. Children receive lge in
a simplified form which leads the, to build a strong basis for the lge. On the other
hand, however, adults are equipped more sophisticated levels of pragmatic skills
and knowledge of their L1 that can be positively transferred while acquiring L2.

2
Adults have a greater knowledge of the real-world the thing that helps them
perform tasks of great complexity at ease even if their linguistic resources are still
limited.
2. Sex

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
that is based on outcomes which reflect cultural influences.
In fact it seems to be some sex differences in language acquisition and
processing, but the research does not show that women are always on top. For
example, women outperform men in some tests of verbal fluency (such as finding
words that begin with a certain letter). If women were given a task to give words
initialized by the letter "o", they would easily give them, but men would find it a bit
complicated. Females seem to be better at memorizing complex forms, while males
appear to be better at computing compositional rules. Other differences may be
related to hormonal variables: higher androgen level correlates with better
automat-zed skills, and high estrogen with better semantic/interpretive skill.
Kimura reports that higher levels of articulation and motor ability have been
associated in women with higher levels of estrogen during the menstrual cycle.
3. Aptitude
It is a natural ability or skill at doing or learning something. 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 ability to decipher and analyze the spoken
patterns of the lge which can be stored and retrieved. This is greatly 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”. 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. (I believe that it is really close to musical
Intelligence)

3
 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. They have to do with how
grammar is processed in the brain.
Associative memory capacity deals with how linguistic items are stored in the
brain and with how they are recalled and used in speech or writing, and ultimately
determines speaker fluency. (I believe that this means how vocabulary is stored in
our brains. Which term is being linked or associated with which term, and in which
form these terms are stored. Some people store linguistic elements in the form of
single words, as a result they have what is called hesitation after each word. Others
store lge in the form of phrases, so they are more fluent and make less hesitation)
It is said that these abilities vary from one leaner to another, and vary within
the same learner himself: 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.
4. 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 has got is various definitions, but it is usually at least the following
components are being included:
•The goal or the need to be fulfilled
•The Desire to fulfill that goal or need
•Perception that learning L2 is relevant to fulfilling the goal or meeting the
need
•Taking into account the chances of success or failure in learning L2
•Having a value for outcomes/rewards
The most widely recognized types of motivation are integrative and instrumental.
Integrative motivation when an L2 learner wishes to become accepted as a
member in the people and culture of speech community speaking that is using that

4
lge, it is said that he/she is interactively motivated. Here, emotional or affective
factors are the primary causes behind learning the lge.
Instrumental motivation he/she is said to be instrumentally motivated if the
person learns an L2 as a means to increase occupational or business opportunities,
to enhance prestige and power, to access scientific and technical information, to
attain higher social or economical status, or just to pass a course in school. Other
reported motivations include altruistic reasons, general communicative needs,
desire to travel, and intellectual curiosity (Skehan 1989; Oxford and Ehrman 1993).
Here, again, we have an issue. Some say that motivation and success is a
“chicken-and-egg1” matter. Does high motivation lead to high L2 achievement, or is
it the other way around?
Some scholars, (Schumann 1997, 2001), suggest that motivation for second
language learning is controlled by neurological mechanisms. There are specific
areas within our brain control our motivation and determines how we respond,
including what our attitudes and ultimately degree of effort will be.
5. Cognitive style
Cognitive style refers to individuals’ preferred way of processing information:
i.e. of perceiving, conceptualizing2, organizing, and recalling information.
Unlike other factors its role in explaining why some L2 learners are more
successful than others has not been well established or explained yet, but some
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 factors
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 2.

1
A situation in which it is impossible to say which of two things existed first and which caused the other one.
2
To form an idea or principle in your mind

5
 Cognitive Styles
-Field- -- -Field-independent
dependent
-Global -- -Particular
-Holistic -- -Analytic
-Deductive -- -Inductive
-Focus on -- -Focus on form
meaning
Table 2: Cognitive styles
4.4 Cognitive styles
The field-dependent/field-independent (FD/FI)
See the essay of FD vs. FI.
Some researchers have metaphorically extended this distinction to cultural
differences between whole national or ethnic populations, but the results still
highly questionable.
Another partially related dimension is preference for deductive or inductive
processing.
Deductive (or “top-down”) processing is to begin with a prediction or rule
about lge and then apply it to interpret particular piece of information. They are
given the rule and they give examples and instances about it.
Inductive (or “bottom-up”) processing is to 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. They are given the examples
or the explanation and they induce the rule.
Some evidence can also be found for differential success in relation to relative
focus on meaning versus focus on form. In a study of exceptionally 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)". Field dependent learners
focus on the meaning of what is being said, field independent focus on the way it is
said, ie how it is said.
Another difference in cognitive style may be related to age. Ellen Bialystok
suggests that L2 learners have two options when adapting their existing categories
of linguistic structure to accurately 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

6
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 not to notice these small differences, while
children notice them and tend to create new categories accordingly. She suggests
that this might be the reason why many people consider children to be superior in
L2 learning. However, this age and style relationship is not absolute or fixed. Some
children might pronounce L2 with a foreign accent (though it is less likely to
happen) and adults might achieve native-like pronunciation (but are less likely to do
so). The reason why some children might intentionally choose to adopt nonnative
pronunciation in their L2 is 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 of these cognitive styles
means has a superiority or advantage over others, but L2 learners feel at ease when
their teachers use instructional strategies that are in harmony with theirs.
There have been some Critics that have been primarily directed at the field-
dependent/field-independent (FD/FI) distinction and related continua. One
criticism is that the 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.

7
 6. Personality

Personality Traits
Anxious --- Self-confident
Risk-avoiding --- Risk-taking
Shy --- Adventuresome
Introverted --- Extroverted
Inner-directed --- Other-directed
Reflective --- Impulsive
Imaginative --- Uninquisitive
Creative --- Uncreative
Empathetic --- Insensitive to others
Tolerant of ambiguity --- Closure-oriented

Table 3: Personality Traits

Personality factors are sometimes considered to be one of the cognitive styles

and learning style. Research in SLA has shown that most of us are somewhere in
between the extremes. That is to say it is rare to find people at the two extremes.
4.5 Personality traits
Anxiety has received the greatest attention in SLA research. Self-confidence is
next on the list. It has been shown that anxious learners show law a weak
proficiency and weak levels in general. Self-confident learners those who exhibit
low anxiety levels tend to be more risk-takers or more adventuresome behaviors.
We need to keep some complex issues in mind when we read about or
interpret research on anxiety:
(1) Anxiety might have effects at both sides. In some contexts it may facilitate
language learning. However, more successful language learners might feel less
anxious in situations of L2 learning and thus be more self-confident. Dr. Lakhal
Ayat carries out a research about this and she found that successful learners
are never anxious. So, anxiety has got bad influence on the process of learning.
(2) Some Instructional contexts generate more anxiety than others. 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) The level of anxiety differs from one speech community to another. For
example, oral performance in English classes generates relatively more anxiety
for Korean students than for Turkish students. This difference may be because
of cultural differences in concepts or because of classroom practices and
experiences.

8
 (4) Low anxiety and high self-confidence increase student motivation to learn,
and to use the L2 outside of the classroom setting. It is therefore not clear
whether success is directly due to lower anxiety, or to a higher level of
motivation and more social interaction.
It is believed that extroverts are more successful language learners than
introverts, but there is no clear support for the advantage of either trait. Most
personality studies have involved adult subjects, but when children from several
countries were involved, Saville-Troike found no significant correlation between
either trait and academic achievement. She did find that among the Japanese L1
girls in her 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 has an advantage. Introverts do
better and extroverts talk more.
7. Learning strategies
According to Oxford, learning strategies are specific strategies that help
learners learn.
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. Many learning strategies are culturally-based: that is to say
individuals learn how to learn as part of their socialization experiences. (The stupid
Algerian students still rote-learn, though they are being told many times not to do
so!)
The effectiveness of the different strategies is not equal: some are more
effective than others (understanding is definitely better than rote-learning), and
some more appropriate in particular contexts than others (rote-learning is great to
be used while learning Qur'an, but not to prepare for SLA examination!). 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 (a system of divisions) 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

9
 language task; self-monitoring of progress and knowledge states. Planning for
a lesson or making a self-evaluation of one's progress.
 Cognitive: e.g. repeating after a language model (a dialogue or an utterance);
translating from L1; remembering a new word in L2 by relating it to one that
sounds the same in L1 (cave ‫)كهف‬, 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.
Self-reporting is a common means for collecting information on what
strategies learners follow while learning. Interviews, questionnaires, think-aloud
activities in which learners talk about what they are doing using L2. Self-reports can
also be done through 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 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 undetectable wireless microphones is also a
profitable data collection procedure with children who naturally talk to themselves
while working at cognitively demanding tasks
Some of Saville-Troike 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
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
1994:546):
□ Concern for language form (but also attention to meaning)
□ Concern for communication
□ Active task approach
□ Awareness of the learning process

10
 □ 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. I used to like phonetics
sessions not because the sessions were active or the teacher was great, in fact it
was just the opposite, but because I saw that it is of great importance for me to
master the phonology of the lge.
In spite of the extensive research on the characteristics of “good language learner”,
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. Are the traits a result of
good learning or the cause of it? Another problem or even a danger is that a
researcher may have no well formed ideas as to “what works,” and thus damages a
student’s successful strategy by imposing or encouraging a different one. A
researcher may mislead a good lge learner into a failure by suggesting, imposing or
encouraging a learner to follow a certain learning strategy or another!

According to Ellis, successful lge learners are concerned with form, accuracy and
correctness. They die if they do not correct mistakes. They seek every opportunity
to use the lge. They like holding conversations in the target lge. They are aware of
their own learning progress. And they have the ability to use learning strategies in a
flexible way. That is to say, they do not stick to only one strategy for a life time.

11