Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Individual Differences in SLA
Individual Differences in SLA
ENG101 - Dd
BA ELS - 1
Example:
The cat naps every day.
noun verb
I have been sitting all day.
Noun phrase Verb phrase (predicate)
(subject)
➢ Inductive learning ability is the ability to infer or induce rules governing the
structure of a language.
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.
Example:
By first presenting learners with examples of sentences, the teacher allows the
learners to discover the structures of the sentences. The notion is that the students will
eventually notice a pattern within the examples given.
➢ Associative memory capacity/Rote learning ability 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. In other
words, ability to learn and retain associations between words in a new language and
their meaning in English.
Example:
When speaking, listening, writing, or reading a language, it’s either a learner
remembers a word or grammar pattern, or he doesn’t. It all depends on the learner’s
rote learning ability or his aptitude.
Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (Sparks & Ganschow)
The two educational psychologists Richard Sparks and Leonore Ganschow together with
their colleagues proposed the ‘Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis’ (LCDH). As supported
by a series of empirical studies, the basic premise of the LCDH model lies in the argument that
native language (L1) literacy skills are essential for predicting L2 learning. For example, if a
student experiences difficulties in L1 phonology/orthography, his subsequent L2 learning will
likely to suffer as well. In other words, the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis posits that
poor performance in foreign language learning may result not from affective variables, but rather,
from native language problems, inefficiency in syntactic and especially in phonological codes.
As suggested by a recent factor-analytical study, four basic components of L2 aptitude,
including students’ L1 and L2 Phonology/Orthography skills (subsuming phonemic coding and
phonological processing ability), both their L1 and L2 language analysis skills (comprising
comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, and inductive language learning), their IQ/Memory skills
(including L1 intelligence and L2 paired-associate learning measures), and self-perceptions of L2
motivation and anxiety combined to explain 76% of the variance in ultimate oral and written L2
proficiency.
Developing the LCDH, Sparks & Ganschow further argue that it is, therefore, necessary to
examine similarities and differences between the L1 and L2. This issue is particularly important
with potential negative transfer effects from morphosyllabic languages such as Chinese to
alphabetic languages such as English and vice versa. As such, they propose to include a certain
phonological measure of L1 and L2 in FL aptitude tests. In this sense, the LCDH aptitude model
as advocated by Sparks and colleagues further complements Carroll’s original four-factor view of
FL aptitude by adding the extra (sub-)component of ‘L1 and L2 phonology/orthographic decoding
skill’ as an important factor of aptitude. Extending from this model is also the highlighted call for
more serious cross-linguistic analyses between the two languages in question (L1 and L2) in future
research of FL aptitude.
Motivation
(By: Nishren I. Razuman)
Motivation is variously defined, but it is usually conceived as a construct 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
Types of motivation
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 types 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. Other reported motivations include altruistic reasons, general
communicative needs, desire to travel, and intellectual curiosity (Skehan 1989; Oxford and
Ehrman 1993).
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 determines how we respond,
including what our attitudes and ultimately degree of effort will be.
Motivation Theory (Gardner)
According to Gardner (2001), motivation includes three elements – effort (the effort to
learn the language), desire (wanting to achieve a goal), and positive affect (enjoy the task of
learning the language). The role of orientations, which Gardner refers to as a "goal" aims to arouse
motivation and direct it to reach the goals (Gardner, 1985). Two orientations in particular
integrative orientation and instrumental orientation – were introduced by Gardner and his
associates and have been discussed and explored in L2 motivation research extensively. According
to Gardner (1985), integrative orientation refers to a positive attitude towards the L2 community
and the desire to get close to the community and even become a member of that community. As a
counterpart to integrative orientation, instrumental orientation is defined as learning an L2 for
pragmatic reasons, such as getting a better job or a higher salary.
Affect
(By: Ayessah Nesreen B. Pasagi)
Affective filters which impede language learning vary in each individual learner. This can
be personality types, anxiety, self-esteem, self-concept, or motivation. Research conducted by
Altunel (2015) revealed that personality types affect language learning. In this study, it was
revealed that extrovert types are more inclined to perform well at language production, whereas
introvert types tend to perform well at listening to and writing language lessons. This is believed
to have been because extrovert types are wired to do their best when other people are present, and
also because they are better at speaking. This is in contrast to introvert types as they are inclined
to perform well at language system learning without speech production. The anxiety level of the
introvert types is low since their language learning are administered based on their preferred
method of language learning.
Concerning the self-esteem and self-concept, these are intertwined to each other as revealed
also by the study of Altunel. Introvert types have high self-esteem and self-concept when they are
learning without other people present to observe their progress. For extrovert types, their self-
esteem and self-concept are high when observers are present to behold their progress.
Affective Filter Hypothesis (Stephen Krashen)
The Affective Filter hypothesis embodies Krashen's view that a number of 'affective
variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables
include: motivation, self-confidence, anxiety and personality traits. Krashen claims that learners
with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, a low level of anxiety and extroversion
are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem,
anxiety, introversion, and inhibition can raise the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that
prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words when the filter is
'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not
sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
In a reverse situation, when anxiety is high, and motivation and self-esteem are low, the
affective filter will then block comprehensible input from reaching the LAD and thus hindering
the process of language production, i.e, forming a “mental block” that impedes comprehensible
input from being used for acquisition.
The participants of this study were the 537 students who are randomly selected. According to the
researchers, 210 were male and 327 were female. Furthermore, the ages of the participants were
between 19 and 24. The respondents were Farsi speakers learning EFL and came from different
academic majors.
Research Instrument:
The research instrument used in this study was the revised Persian version of Gardner’s
AMTB. According to the researchers, the AMTB was applied in this study to identify Iranian
university students‟ attitudes and motivation toward learning English as a foreign language. The
Attitude, Motivation Test Battery or AMBT is a research instrument which has been developed to
assess the major affective components shown to be involved in second language learning. It is
comprised of scales assessing the individual's affective reactions toward various groups,
individuals and concepts associated with second language acquisition, and consequently discretion
is required of the user. The original formulations of the major concepts as well as the original items
of the AMBT was developed by Gardner (1958; 1960). The AMBT was continuously developed
overtime, and it has been used in many different forms. In addition, the composition of the
Attitude/Motivation Test Battery varies somewhat from form to form depending upon the purpose
for which it is intended. Also, the researchers stated that to further understand the learners’ attitude,
the learners were analyzed on the basis of their gender and to observe whether gender plays a
significant role among Iranian EFL learners.
Data Collection (Methodology)
The Persian version of Gardner’s AMTB questionnaire was used by the researchers in order
to obtain the data needed for the study. The questionnaire has two main sets of questions. The first
set has a total of 53 questions which was divided into seven categories. The first category has 10
questions which was designed to measure the learners’ interest in foreign language. The second
category also has 10 questions which was designed to measure attitudes toward English speakers.
The third category also has ten questions developed to measure attitudes toward learning English.
The fourth provided four questions to measure integrative Orientation. The fifth category also has
four questions to measure instrumental orientation. The sixth category on the other hand has five
questions measuring English class anxiety. The seventh and last category has 10 questions to
measure parental encouragement. The second set of questions aims to measure motivation, which
has three categories designed to measure three primary concepts in the socio-educational model.
The first category is the motivational intensity which has 10 questions. The second category is the
desire to learn EFL which also has 10 questions. The third category is the orientation index which
only have one question.
Table 1: Section A of AMTB Measuring Attitudes with its Items
Question No. Category Name