Individual Differences in Language Learning A Complex Systems Theory Perspective 1St Ed Edition Carol Griffiths Full Chapter

Individual Differences in Language
Learning: A Complex Systems Theory

Perspective 1st ed. Edition Carol
Griffiths
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/individual-differences-in-language-learning-a-complex
-systems-theory-perspective-1st-ed-edition-carol-griffiths/
Carol Griffiths · Adem Soruç
Individual
Differences in
Language Learning
A Complex Systems Theory Perspective
Individual Differences in Language Learning
Carol Griffiths • Adem Soruç
Individual Differences
in Language Learning
A Complex Systems Theory Perspective
Carol Griffiths Adem Soruç
Girne American University Department of Education
Girne/Kyrenia, North Cyprus University of Bath
Bath, UK
ISBN 978-3-030-52899-7 ISBN 978-3-030-52900-0 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52900-0
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Moobin / shutterstock.com
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
“Dr Grifiths dedicates this book for her family,
friends and colleagues, for their support.”
“Dr Soruç dedicates this book to his wife, Fatma Nur,
and their son, Eymen Erdem, as well as his dad and
mum, Dursun and Habibe, and his sister Rukiye.”
Preface
Aims of the Book
The book aims to be.
Theoretically Sound
This is important since the book is aimed primarily at postgraduate students (for
whom it will be a valuable reference) and their teachers (for whom it will be a valu-
able source of information and material). In addition, it may be useful for under-
graduate students studying as pre-service teachers (for whom it will be an important
course book), their teachers (for whom it will provide invaluable teaching material)
and also teacher educators (who will find the book a useful resource). Since theo-
retical rigour is important for these groups, especially if they are planning research,
the book aims to carefully attend to the theory underlying each topic.
Evidence-based
Each individual difference has at least one original study to provide evidence for the
statements made in the chapter. In this way, in order to avoid merely summarizing
old ideas, or presenting ideas with little or no empirical evidence to back the ideas
up, this book plans to provide fresh new evidence to support the ideas presented in
each chapter.
Replicatable
Studies are described in detail and instruments appended where appropriate so that
others can follow up should they wish to do so, perhaps with adaptation to suit the
needs of different participant sets or environments. This is important for research-
ers, and, since a major market for the book is intended to be students looking for
project/thesis topics, it is anticipated that this will be a useful feature of the book.
vii
viii Preface
Reader-friendly
Many books on this kind of topic are extremely “dense” and difficult to read and
understand. This book is intended to be accessible and this is especially important
for non-native speakers, of whom there is an ever-growing number and who are
expected to be a large readership for this book.
A Valuable Resource
The book aims to provide a valuable source of information and inspiration for stu-
dents, researchers, teachers and teacher trainers. In addition to the information in
each chapter, there is a glossary to provide definitions of the key terms used and an
extensive reference list which will be invaluable for students looking for reference
material for their own studies.
Organization of the Book
The book begins with a holistic overview, outlining the major theoretical foun-
dation of the book (complex/dynamic systems) plus the role of ecological and
sociocultural context and briefly summarizing the major topics of the chapters
which follow. Of the chapters which make up the main body of the book, 11 are
based on major individual differences identified in the literature, which are fol-
lowed by a final chapter which considers how each of the individual differences
described fits into the complex, dynamic, situated whole. Chapters are sequenced
on the premise that some individual differences are more open to teacher influ-
ence than others. Clearly, a student is as old as s/he is and this is the factor most
beyond a teacher’s control: all a teacher can do is develop strategies to manage
the age factor in the classroom. Other factors such as sex/gender, aptitude, race
/ethnicity/nationality/culture and personality are often thought to be relatively
stable, but contemporary views tend to be less set-in-concrete than might once
have been the case (see the relevant chapters for discussion of this issue).
Personality is often believed to be a contributing determinant of learning style,
which, in turn, contributes to a learner’s preferred strategies, which help to
develop autonomy. All of these factors plus a learner’s beliefs and affective
reactions contribute to motivation. And all of these variables interact with each
other and contribute to a highly complex and dynamic whole, further influenced
by ecological and sociocultural context.
Each chapter (except for the initial overview chapter) follows a basic structure:
To get you thinking before you read. The purpose of this is to get students to activate
existing schemata, to provide a stimulus for discussion, and to help students
identify what they already know and what they need to find out. These questions
Preface ix
can be used in class with the whole class or in groups (depending on class size)
or assigned for out-of-class work on a blended/flipped learning basis, depending
on the prevailing learning environment, teacher/student preference and the time
available.
Background. This section aims to provide basic definitions and to discuss essential
concepts.
Previous Research. Previous studies are described in this section.
New Research. This section provides fresh, evidence-based insights into the topic,
and each chapter includes at least one new piece of research.
Discussion. Here the findings of the new studies are discussed and compared with
those from earlier studies.
Implications for Language Teaching and Learning. Implications for teaching and
learning are suggested.
Questions for Further Research. Suggestions are made for possible follow-up stud-
ies which readers may be interested to pursue.
Conclusion. The chapter concludes by summarizing and reflecting on what has been
presented on the topic, especially in relation to complex/dynamic/situated
theories.
Questions to Consider. These questions are designed to complement those at the
beginning of the chapter, and to get students to think about what they have read
in the chapter. They can be used for discussion or as the basis for assignment
work. Teachers who find the suggested questions impractical for the time avail-
able or not suited to their particular students or ideas on the subject can, of
course, be selective.
Follow-up Tasks. These can be used for assignments or as the basis for projects
or theses.
Suggestions for Further Reading. These may include publications not included in
the text (and, therefore, not in the reference list), but which may be useful for
those wanting to pursue the subject in greater depth, perhaps for their own
research.
Appendices. Instruments used in the studies described in the chapter will be repro-
duced here to assist those who might care to replicate/extend the studies. In the
case of well-known pre-published instruments (e.g. the Beliefs about Language
Learning Inventory (BALLI)), reference will be provided so that readers can find
them if they wish.
At the end of the book, there is a glossary which provides definitions of the key
terms used in the book, and an extensive reference list, which is especially invalu-
able for those wanting to pursue their own research agendas.
x Preface
Audience
Students
• The chapters of the book are intended to provide basic information about the
given topic which postgraduate students can use as a starting point for their own
investigations.
• Undergraduate students doing courses on this topic may also find the book useful.
• The glossary is especially useful to provide quick and handy basic definitions of
the terms used in the book.
• The text is written in a reader-friendly style.
• The very thorough reference list can be extremely useful for assignment, project
or thesis/dissertation work.
Practising Teachers
• The book provides multiple thought-provoking insights which teachers might be

able to apply to their own professional practices.
• The material in the book might be used by teachers in their own classrooms.
• Themes of the book may provide inspiration for action research.
• By means of these insights and/or action research, teachers may develop
autonomy.
Teacher Educators
• The initial questions to get students thinking provide an opportunity for discus-
sion and activating existing schemata.
• The text itself is written in a reader-friendly style which makes it more accessible
(and therefore, hopefully, less anxiety-provoking and more fun) for students,
many of whom may be non-native speakers.
• The questions to consider at the end of the main text can be used for class discus-
sion, divided and assigned as group work with follow-up feedback (providing
presentation practice) or set as homework (perhaps contributing to assessment),
depending on the needs, other workloads and the time available.
• The follow-up task can be used for assignments (contributing to the requirements
for assessment).
• The suggestions for further reading include publications not included in the main
text, but which can provide useful extra information, perhaps for homework.
Where possible, relatively easily available texts (e.g. special issues of journals)
are chosen for recommendation here.
• The appendices include any instruments used in the studies described in the
chapter which can be used by students for replication or extension purposes.
Preface xi
Researchers
• The questions posed can provide inspiration for interesting research topics and
point to gaps in the existing literature.
• The studies included in the book are designed to be replicatable. Instruments
used are included and can be used in follow-up studies if they are suitable, or
they can be adapted to suit the purpose of the target context.
• A very extensive reference list is included, which can be used as a starting point
for other studies.
• The glossary provides clear and concise definitions of key terms.
Girne/Kyrenia, North Cyprus Carol Griffiths

Bath, UK Adem Soruç
Acknowledgements
The authors of this volume would like to thank participants and authors of the
research studies.
xiii
Contents
1 Individual Differences: An Overview �� 1

2 Age�� 11
3 Sex/Gender�� 29
4 Race/Ethnicity/Nationality/Culture�� 47
5 Aptitude�� 63
6 Personality�� 81
7 Learning Style�� 97
8 Language Learning Strategies�� 113
9 Autonomy�� 131
10 Beliefs�� 149
11 Affect �� 165
12 Motivation�� 181
13 A Holistic View �� 197
Glossary �� 213
References�� 217
Index�� 219
xv
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Median levels of proficiency according to sex and across all
students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 3.2 Statistics regarding students’ sex and success rates in the
proficiency exam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 3.3 Significant personality differences according to gender . . . . . . . . 33
Table 3.4 Number of strategies used frequently according to sex/gender
and across all students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 3.5 Autonomy statements showing a male/female difference
with median ratings according to gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 3.6 Autonomy statements showing significant differences
in ratings with median ratings according to gender . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 3.7 Significant differences (Mann-Whitney U) in FLCAS
items according to gender with Effect sizes (E) expressed
as % of the variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 3.8 Attribution items showing a significant gender difference
with probability value (p) and effect size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 3.9 Mann-Whitney Test results of the components of the Foreign
Language Motivation Questionnaire for motivation according
to gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 4.1 Median ratings for students’ culture shock questionnaire
with minimum and maximum ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 4.2 Ratings ascribed to the questionnaire items by Hakim (H)
and Ana (A) with Ana’s comments alongside, and final
comments from both in the box below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 6.1 The median (Med.) levels of agreement with range for all
the items in the personality questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 7.1 Median ratings of learning style items for the Inventory
of Language Learning Styles (ILLS) for Chinese (N = 31)
and Turkish (N = 106) students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Table 7.2 Style items significantly correlated (Spearman’s rho—rs)
with test results plus effect sizes (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
xvii
xviii List of Tables
Table 9.1 Autonomy statements with median ratings (MED) plus

correlation coefficients (R), probability values (P)
and effect sizes (E) for the relationship (Spearman’s)
between ratings and the results of the final practice test
for statistically significant items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Table 9.2 Median ratings and range of responses to statements
about learner autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Table 10.1 Median ratings for beliefs about language learning by
students from Chinese and Iranian contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Table 10.2 Ratings of beliefs about individual difference factors
according to the Iranian students noted above (Tajeddin) . . . . . . 157
Table 11.1 Students’ (N = 406) median ratings (M) for Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety items, with probability (p) values,
Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rs), and effect size (E) . . . . . 170
Table 12.1 Students’ (N = 406) median levels of agreement (out of 10)
for each type of motivation, plus the relationships
with achievement (Spearman’s rho), the probability values (p),
and the percentage of variance or effect size (E = rs2) . . . . . . . . 185
Table 13.1 Median levels of agreement for levels of importance
of individual differences in successful language learning
for all participants (ALL, N = 41), for practising teachers
(PT, N = 12) and for pre-service teachers (PST, N = 29) . . . . . . 199
Table 13.2 Median levels of agreement for levels of importance
of individual differences in successful language learning
for pre-service teachers (PST) in two different contexts . . . . . . . 204
Individual Differences: An Overview
1
To Get You Thinking Before You Read
1. How many individual differences can you think of?

2. Are they important for successful language learning? How? Why?
3. Do you agree that individual differences interact with each other in com-
plex ways? Can you think of any examples?
4. Are individual differences dynamic (i.e. are they subject to change)?
Which ones?
5. How does ecological or sociocultural context relate to individual
differences?
6. Do you think a holistic view is important? Why/not?
Background
Historically, much of the research into language learning has been concerned with
establishing commonalities and considering how these universal factors might be
applied to teaching and learning (e.g. Eckman, Bell, & Nelson, 1984). As Skehan
(1989) points out, much of the previous research into language acquisition had
focused on “how learners are similar, and what processes of learning are universal”
(p. 1, author’s italics). However, if language learning is to be successful, we need
also to consider some of the factors which are generated from within individuals,
which make them different from each other, and which will inevitably impact on
their success.
Interest in individual variables began to expand exponentially towards the end of
the twentieth century, leading Ellis (1994) to comment on the “veritable plethora of
individual learner variables which researchers have identified as influencing learn-
ing outcomes” (p. 472). An understanding of these multiple variables is critical,
© The Author(s) 2020 1

C. Griffiths, A. Soruç, Individual Differences in Language Learning,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52900-0_1
2 1 Individual Differences: An Overview
since, as Horwitz (1999) reminds us “language learners are individuals approaching

language learning in their own unique way” (p. 558), and these variable learner
characteristics may have a “significant bearing on how learning proceeds” (Cohen
& Dörnyei, 2002, p. 170). As a result of increased awareness of the role played by
individual learner variables in successful language development, interest in the field
has continued unabated (e.g. Afflerbach, 2015; Arabski & Wojtaszek, 2011;
D’browska & Andringa, 2019; Dörnyei, 2005; Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014;
Pawlak, 2012; Roberts & Meyer, 2012).
Why Are Individual Differences (IDs) Important?
An early advocate of the key role played by individual differences was Selinker
(1972), who was emphatic when he stated: “a theory of … language learning that
does not provide a central place for individual differences among learners cannot be
considered acceptable” (p. 213, author’s italics). A decade later, but still relatively
avant-garde, Wong Fillmore (1982) commented: “Anyone who works with … lan-
guage learners, whether in teaching or in research, discovers quickly how much
individual variation there is” (p. 157).
Individual differences are important for language teachers for several reasons. If
they become aware of learner differences in their classrooms, they can develop
materials, change their teaching style, adopt new instructional strategies, and give
feedback considering all the learner differences in the classroom. Although it may
be challenging to unravel what is universal and what is individual (Ehrman, Leaver,
& Oxford, 2003), the teacher needs to provide options for an optimal learning envi-
ronment for every student.
What Should Be Included as an Individual Difference?
A review of the literature reveals that what should be included as an individual dif-
ference is far from universally agreed, even among those who are considered experts
and who have published on the subject. Skehan (1989), one of the first to deal at
length with the subject, included aptitude, motivation, language learning strategies,
extroversion/introversion, risk-taking, intelligence, field in/dependence and anxiety
among the topics he discussed. More than a decade and a half later, Dörnyei (2005)
listed personality, aptitude, motivation, strategies and beliefs, while Arabski and
Wojtaszek (2011) included strategies, autonomy, personality, gender and self-
efficacy, and Pawlak (2012) dealt with aptitude, age, intelligence, affect and motiva-
tion among the individual factors in his book.
As we can see, then, consensus is far from complete on the question of what
should be included as an individual difference. For the purpose of the present book,
the concept of individual difference will be taken fairly broadly to include:
characteristics which make learners different from each other

and which affect the way that they behave in the classroom and beyond.
Theoretical Perspectives 3
For the purpose of this book, these will include age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity/n
ationality/culture, aptitude, personality, style, strategies, autonomy, beliefs, affect/
emotion and motivation. Each of these will receive a chapter-length treatment, and
some may include other related factors mentioned in the literature, such as
• intelligence and working memory (which will be included under aptitude)

• intro/extroversion, in/tolerance of ambiguity, ego boundaries and willingness to
communicate (which will be included under personality)
• risk-taking, style-stretching and field in/dependence (which will be included
under style)
• metacognition and self-regulation (which will be included under autonomy)
• anxiety, attitude, attribution, empathy, inhibition and self-concept (which will be
included as affective/emotional variables)
• volition, investment, goal-orientation and motivational self-system (which will
be included under motivation)
Rationales for each of these will be included in the relevant chapters.

It should be noted that some of these individual differences might be considered
to be of a fundamentally different nature from others. Age, sex and race, for instance,
are essentially biological, while others are sociocultural and/or ecological (espe-
cially nationality and culture), while yet others (perhaps the majority) are psycho-
logical. Nevertheless, as any teacher will know, all of these factors can play a
noticeable role in classroom dynamics, and for this reason, they will be included in
the present volume which focuses on the role of individual variables in language
development.
Theoretical Perspectives
Complex/Dynamic Systems
It is generally Diane Larsen-Freeman who is credited with applying Complexity

Theory developed in other disciplines (such as the physical sciences) to language
learning. As Larsen-Freeman (1997) explains, language can be described as a com-
plex system in that it consists of many different but interdependent subsystems
(grammar, vocabulary, phonology, semantics, etc.). This means that:
A change in any one of them can result in a change in the others…..In other words, the
behaviour of the whole emerges out of the interaction of the subsystems. Thus, describing
each subsystem tells us about the subsystems, it does not do justice to the whole of lan-
guage. (p. 149)
As a result of this complexity, “we cannot get a true measure of the influence of
a factor if we isolate it from the others and examine it one at a time” (Larsen-
Freeman, 2015, p. 14). Mercer (2014) further explains: “the collective functioning
of the system as one organic whole cannot be deduced from an understanding of the
individual components. Thus, the properties of the system as a whole are more than
merely the sum of its separate parts” (p. 163).
Not only this, but because a complex system is in a constant state of interaction,
it is also dynamic, that is, it is prone to change. Applied to the complex interplay of
individual characteristics within any particular learner, this implies that a change in
any specific individual factor (e.g. affect) is likely to result in changes elsewhere in
the system (e.g. motivation).
Socio-ecological Context
It is also essential to remember that this complex/dynamic individual with multiple

interacting characteristics does not exist in a vacuum: s/he is situated in a particular
social or ecological context which is as much a part of the complex/dynamic system
as any of the other factors.
It is usually Vygotsky (1978, 1987) who is credited with first bringing the impor-
tance of the social context in which all individuals are situated to wide attention.
According to Vygotsky, language is a social phenomenon which is developed
through more competent mediators, a process which has been translated as the Zone
of Proximal Development or ZPD. This idea has been developed further over the
years by writers such as Lantolf (2000), Ushioda (2007) and Toohey and Norton
(2010). This context can include friends, family, classmates, neighbours, teachers,
or any of the multiple others with whom an individual interacts in the course of his/
her life.
Scholars such as Holliday and Cooke (1982) and Van Lier (1997) were among
the first to use the term “ecological” to argue that for effective language teaching
and learning to take place, the whole context where teaching and learning occurs
should be taken into account. Tudor (2003) defines an ecological approach as
“exploring language teaching and learning within the totality of the lives of the vari-
ous participants involved, and not as one sub-part of their lives which can be exam-
ined in isolation” (p. 4). Van Lier (2010) likewise identifies the ecological approach
as a way “to look at the learning process, the actions and activities of teachers and
learners, the multi-layered nature of interaction and language use, in all their com-
plexity and as a network of interdependencies among all the elements in the setting,
not only at the social level, but also at the physical and symbolic level” (p. 3).
Pfenninger (2017) is another who takes an ecological approach to language learn-
ing; her conclusions underline the influential nature of the learning environment.
However, an ecological perspective does not necessarily imply that the context
dominates, or that the learner is powerless in the face of situational realities. In fact,
learners can, and often do, manipulate the environment to their own advantage, as
well as being influenced by it.
Individual Variable Overview 5
Holism
Although Complex/dynamic Systems Theory makes intuitive sense, it can create a

dilemma from a research point of view. Although it is not difficult to agree that fac-
tors must be considered in relation to each other and in context if they are to be
meaningful, it is simply practically impossible to research all possible factors at the
same time (e.g. Ushioda, 2015). For this reason, it is necessary to make pragmatic
decisions to limit the number of variables being considered at any one time in order
to avoid what might otherwise become a chaotic scenario, ultimately meaning little
or nothing.
For this reason, in the interests of practicality, this book will focus on key indi-
vidual differences one at a time. But it will also be at pains to relate the individual
differences to the complex/dynamic/situated whole, the importance of which is
emphasized by Amerstorfer (2020). Therefore, the final chapter of the book will
attempt to take a holistic perspective over all of the individual variables considered.
Individual Variable Overview
Age: Perhaps the most stable learner characteristic of all is age: a student is as old
as he or she is, and there is nothing anyone (including themselves) can do to change
that. There has been a great deal of debate over the years about the effect of age on
language learning, and explanations for age-related differences in language learning
include a hypothesized critical/sensitive period, socio-affective influences, cogni-
tive factors and differences in a learning context. Although younger has generally
been considered to be better when it comes to language learning, evidence has been
mounting that older learners can learn language very effectively. (For further dis-
cussion and details, including references, see chapter on age.)
Sex/gender: Although females are often believed to be better language learners
than males, research evidence to consistently support this belief has proven elusive.
Although some studies have found female language learners to be more proficient
than male students, other studies have reported no significant differences according
to gender, while yet others have discovered a higher pass rate among male students
than among females. In studies where a gender difference has been discovered, it
has in general been relatively small, with a far greater variation between individuals
than between the sexes, and possibly attributable to other confounding variables
such as socialization, context or goal-orientation. (For further discussion and details,
including references, see chapter on sex/gender.)
Race/nationality/ethnicity/culture: Individuals, of course, do not exist in isola-
tion: they are born into a particular racial/national/ethnic/cultural environment.
These concepts are often not easy to disentangle from each other, and they may
often overlap, or even be the same; but throughout their lives, this background will
exert an influence on the individual in one way or another, and moving from one
racial/national/ethnic/cultural environment to another often results in what has been
called “culture shock”. Race, nationality, ethnicity and culture are likely to have a
profound influence on the way people think and behave and, therefore, on the way
they learn. Indeed, the very definition of “successful learning” itself may need to be
reconsidered in the light of these factors. (For further discussion and details, includ-
ing references, see chapter on race/nationality/ethnicity/culture.)
Aptitude: Language aptitude has been described as a stable characteristic of the
individual which accounts for speed in language learning, and the degree to which
language aptitude is considered an important factor in language learning has varied
over the years. At one time, aptitude tests were commonly used to select students for
language courses and to exclude those who did not score well, but in more recent
years, these elitist practices have been discredited as anti-egalitarian. Furthermore,
questions have been raised regarding what it is, precisely, that aptitude tests mea-
sure, and the extent to which the measured factor may overlap with intelligence/s or
memory. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on
aptitude.)
Personality: Another learner characteristic which is usually considered relatively
stable is personality. Although there has been relatively little interest in personality
from a language learning perspective, it may be a salient individual characteristic
when we consider such factors as willingness to communicate (an important factor
in communicative classrooms), tolerance of ambiguity, ego permeability and the
dynamics of extroverts versus introverts. (For further discussion and details, includ-
ing references, see chapter on personality.)
Style: Learning style is sometimes believed to be an aspect of personality, and
some of the factors overlap. It is usually defined in terms of a learner’s preferred
way of learning, and over the years there have been numerous instruments devel-
oped in attempts to measure it. Although learners can be quite distinct from each
other in their learning style, and although good learners seem to be more capable of
style-stretching to suit a given learning situation, there does not seem to be any one
style which is typical of good language learners. (For further discussion and details,
including references, see chapter on style.)
Strategies: In turn, learning style is sometimes believed to be related to a learn-
er’s strategies, succinctly defined as actions chosen by learners for the purpose of
learning language. The language learning strategy concept has been controversial
since it was introduced to the language learning literature in the 1970s, indeed, at
one point it was threatened with extinction by those who questioned its very exis-
tence, and who promoted the use of the alternative term self-regulation. However,
others pointed out that in order to self-regulate, learners need strategies, and strate-
gies continue to attract vigorous research activity. (For further discussion and
details, including references, see chapter on strategies.)
Autonomy: Strategies, in turn, have long been considered an essential tool for
developing learners’ autonomy, or the ability to manage or control their own learn-
ing. Autonomous learners are able to make decisions about their own learning,
which take account of the learning situation and the learning goal. It contributes to
learner agency (i.e. the ability to take action) and helps to develop metacognition
(i.e. the ability to manage the learning process) and self-regulation. (For further
discussion and details, including references, see chapter on autonomy.)
Individual Variable Overview 7
Beliefs: Beliefs might be defined as something which an individual holds to be

true, and they have the potential to profoundly influence the effectiveness of lan-
guage learning. Although beliefs are often assumed to be a relatively stable indi-
vidual characteristic, there is some evidence that good language learners are capable
of adapting their beliefs to maximize the affordances of particular learning situa-
tions and opportunities. (For further discussion and details, including references,
see chapter on beliefs.)
Affect/emotion: Some learners insist that they do not allow their feelings or emo-
tions to interfere with their learning, preferring to concentrate on their work and not
to worry too much about feelings. However, although learners may believe this to be
true, it has been shown that affect actually has a strong influence on the way stu-
dents learn. Affect includes a number of different areas, such as anxiety, attitude,
attribution, empathy, inhibition and self-concept (including self-confidence, self-
efficacy, self-esteem and self-image). (For further discussion and details, including
references, see chapter on affect/emotion.)
Motivation has been shown to be a major factor in successful language learning.
Traditionally, motivation has been divided according to dichotomies: intrinsic ver-
sus extrinsic and instrumental versus integrative. Although over the years, claims
have been made that one or other of these types of motivation is the most important
for successful language learning, motivation is not a simple phenomenon, and it is
possible that all of these motivational types may have a part to play in the outcome
of language learning endeavours. Not only that, but motivation is dynamic, that is,
it changes, so it must be remembered that just because a learner is or is not moti-
vated at one point in time, this motivational level can fluctuate according to interac-
tion with other individual factors, variations in the background of the learner’s life
(e.g. job, family, health, etc.), ecological changes, changes in goal-orientation, or
interaction with other individuals. (For further discussion and details, including ref-
erences, see chapter on motivation.)
Holistic: This final chapter brings together the factors discussed in the previous
chapters in an attempt to consider their relative importance for successful language
learning. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on
holistic perspective.)
Questions to Consider
1. The saying “younger is better” has often been quoted. Do you agree?
2. It is commonly believed that females are better at learning language than males.
Do you agree?
3. Do you agree that everyone can learn language irrespective of race/nationality/
culture/ethnicity?
4. Do you agree that aptitude is a fixed characteristic, or can an apparent lack of
aptitude be compensated for by other factors? Do you have any examples?
5. Some people argue that extroverted personalities are better language learners
than introverts. What do you think?
6. Do you agree that teachers should change their style to suit their learners’
styles? If so, how can they do this?
7. Which strategies do you think are most important for successful language
learning?
8. Do you think it is important for learners to develop autonomy? Are some cul-
tures more autonomous than others, or is this a misconception?
9. Do you think a person’s beliefs can affect language learning? If so, which ones?
10. Do you think that emotions play a role in language learning? If so, which ones,
and what is the role?
11. Do you agree that motivation is the most important individual difference and
that we can do anything if we want to enough? Do you have any examples of
this in your experience?
12. Which of the individual differences noted above do you think are the most
important for language learning?
Suggestions for Further Reading In addition to the references cited in the text
and the reference list, readers might like to consider:
Learning and Individual Differences:
This is a journal dedicated to the question of individual differences in learning (but
not always language learning).
System (2003/3):
This was a special issue of this journal specializing in individual differences.
References
Afflerbach, P. (Ed.). (2015). Handbook of individual differences in reading. New York: Routledge.
Amerstorfer, C. (2020). The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2
development. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 21–44.
Arabski, J., & Wojtaszek, A. (2011). Individual learner differences in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Cohen, A., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles and strat-
egies. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170–190). London:
Edward Arnold.
D’browska, E., & Andringa, S. (2019). Individual differences in First and Second Language:
Ultimate attainment and their causes. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language
acquisition. Mulwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eckman, F. R., Bell, L. H., & Nelson, D. (Eds.). (1984). Universals of second language acquisi-
tion. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ehrman, M., Leaver, B., & Oxford, R. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second
language learning. System, 31(3), 313–330.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners’ individuality. Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
References 9
Holliday, A., & Cooke, T. (1982). An ecological approach to ESP. In A. Waters (Ed.), Issues in
ESP. Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education 5 (pp. 123–143). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Horwitz, E. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about
language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557–576.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing Sociocultural Theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory in
second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on
offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language
learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, S. (2014). The self from a complexity perspective. In S. Mercer & M. Williams (Eds.),
Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA (pp. 160–174). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pawlak, M. (Ed.). (2012). New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and
teaching. Berlin: Springer.
Pfenninger, S. (2017). Not so individual after all: An ecological approach to age as an individ-
ual difference variable in a classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching,
7(1), 19–46.
Roberts, L., & Meyer, A. (2012). Individual differences in second language learning. Chichester,
UK: Blackwell.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–230.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London, UK:
Edward Arnold.
Toohey, K., & Norton, B. (2010). Language learner identities and sociocultural worlds. In
R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 178–188). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tudor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: Towards an ecological perspective on language
teaching. System, 31(1), 1–12.
Ushioda, E. (2007). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In P. Benson (Ed.), Learner
Autonomy 8: Teacher and Learner Perspectives (pp. 5–24). Dublin: Authentik.
Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre,
& A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Van Lier, L. (1997). Observation from an ecological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 783–787.
Van Lier, L. (2010). The ecology of language learning: Practice to theory, theory to practice.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 2–6.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1982). The language learner as an individual: Implications of research in indi-
vidual differences for the ESL teacher. In M. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL
(pp. 157–171). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Age
2
1. Language learning is often considered according to learners’ ages: young

learner, adolescent, adult. How do you think these groups should be
defined?
2. In your opinion, how important is the age factor in language learning? Can
you think of any examples?
3. When it comes to learning language, do you think is age related to other
learner variables? If so, which ones?
4. How should age differences be managed in a classroom? Do you have any
experience of this from a learner’s or a teacher’s point of view? If so,
please describe your experience and what you did about it.
Background
Of all the many learner variables which have the potential to affect language learning,
none is less malleable than age. Motivation, autonomy, style, strategies, beliefs, affec-
tive states are all potentially amenable to some degree of adaptation, and even rela-
tively stable attributes such as aptitude, personality or gender may not be absolutely
set in concrete. Context can be changed, learning goals can be re-directed. A student
is, however, as old as he or she is, and nothing we (or they) can do will change that.
Nevertheless, there is little agreement on the effect of age on the ability to learn
language, a question which has given rise to heated controversy and a great deal of
discussion and research over the years (for instance, Ausubel, 1964; Bialystok and
Hakuta, 1999; Birdsong, 1999; Griffiths, 2008; Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson 2003;
Singleton and Lesniewska, 2012; Pfenninger and Singleton 2017a, b; Griffiths and

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52900-0_2
12 2 Age
Soruç, 2018). This chapter will, first of all, consider how learners are typically
grouped according to their ages (young, adolescent, adult) and present some of the
research on the different age groups before outlining some of the explanations sug-
gested for the differences. A small-scale case study of a successful mature learner
will then be presented along with implications for language teaching and questions
which might stimulate further research.
Young Learners
Of course, the question of “How young is ‘young’?” is by no means an entirely easy

one to answer in absolute terms. This is especially so since the age at which lan-
guage is being taught is getting younger and younger in many places in the world,
sometimes starting in nursery school, or even from birth. At the other end of the age
group, we might ask “When does ‘young’ stop?” Any answer to these questions
may have consequences for the teaching of “young” learners since it would seem to
be no more than stating the obvious that a child in nursery school needs to be treated
differently from a child approaching adolescence. For the purpose of this book,
however, let us propose that “young” goes from birth to around 12 years of age,
since by the age of 13, the pre-pubescent period has typically ended, and the child
becomes a teenager.
A number of early studies which investigated young learners and compared them
with older learners concluded that younger is better. These classic studies include:
• Oyama (1976) investigated 60 Italian-born immigrants to the USA and con-

cluded that the younger people were when they started learning English, the
more native-like was their pronunciation.
• In the Netherlands, Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle (1978) discovered that, although
their adult immigrant students were well ahead of the children initially, the chil-
dren had caught up with or even passed the adults within a year.
• In Canada, although older students made faster progress in a French bi-lingual
programme initially, Harley (1986) concluded that students who started younger
were ultimately more successful.
Other studies, however, have tended to cast doubt on the “younger is better” idea:
• In a very extensive study over 10 years and involving 17,000 students of French
in Britain, Burstall, Jamieson, Cohen, and Hargreaves (1974) produced results
which seemed to indicate that the benefits of early instruction for language devel-
opment are short-lived.
• A study of Canadian immersion programs by Swain (1981) concluded that an
earlier start had much less effect than might have been expected.
Background 13
More recent studies have tended to be more nuanced in their findings than the
older studies, and they have tended to conclude that age interacts in a complex fash-
ion with numerous other factors when learning language:
• Llanes (2010) administered a questionnaire to measure the participants’ progress

during a 2–3-month stay abroad, which compared 39 children (ages 10–11) and
46 young adults. Although the results showed that children improved better than
the adults, Llanes (ibid.) concluded it was because children spent much more
time with native speakers and built up much wider social networks than adults,
thus suggesting that factors other than age may be influential in terms of giving
younger learners the advantage.
• In another study, Granena and Long (2013a, b) involved 65 Chinese learners of
Spanish with different age of onset (3–6, 7–15, and 16–29 years). They found
multiple sensitive periods for different language domains rather than abrupt
boundaries, leading to the conclusion that “language aptitude can play a mitigat-
ing role, modifying the negative effects of age of acquisition and age in general”
(p. 336).
• In Japan, Nishikawa (2014) involved 47 participants, who were 10 years old and
whose parents were non-native speakers of Japanese. The study also included a
control group (N=17) of native speakers of Japanese to find out whether early
child starters of Japanese could attain nativelike proficiency after constant expo-
sure. The researcher concluded that “early onset did not seem to be the only
condition for nativelike attainment” (p. 512).
• When Pfenninger and Singleton (2019) conducted a 5-year study in Switzerland
involving 636 secondary-school students, of whom half had studied English
from age 8 while the other half had started 5 years later, they concluded that the
effect of age was overshadowed by other factors such as individual differences
and context.
However, although the evidence that younger is not necessarily better seems to
be mounting, there does seem to be a global trend for introducing non-primary lan-
guages (especially English) at younger and younger ages.
Adolescent Learners
By the time a child is around 13 years of age, s/he enters into a different phase of
life, commonly known as adolescence, which may have its own sets of challenges,
both for learners and for those who are trying to teach them. As with “young” learn-
ers, there is no absolute agreement about when adolescence begins and ends, but it
is commonly agreed that it starts with the onset of puberty and continues until
around the end of the teenage years. By this stage, adolescents are usually working
through Piaget’s (1950) Formal Operations stage when they become increasingly
capable of logical and abstract thought.
14 2 Age
As Costley (2018, p. 19) puts it, adolescence is a period “in which significant
physiological, cognitive and social change takes place”. In terms of learning lan-
guage, an adolescent is past the “Critical Period” (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield &
Roberts, 1959). However, does this mean s/he is incapable of learning a language?
Given that evidence is mounting that language can be learnt “until quite late in life”
(Kinsella & Singleton, 2014, p. 458), it would seem that we must assume that teen-
agers are certainly well capable of learning language if they are motivated to do so.
A number of authors have looked into issues related to adolescent learning and
have made important recommendations regarding the specific characteristics of
adolescents which indicate a need to deal with them differently from either younger
or older learners.
• Ryan and Patrick (2001, p. 439) point to the adolescents’ “increased desire for
autonomy”. This may sometimes manifest itself in terms of resistance to estab-
lished authority, but teenagers need to be allowed a certain level of autonomy
since overly restrictive practices can be counterproductive (see the chapter on
autonomy for further discussion of this issue).
• Tragant and Victoria (2006) note the adolescents’ development of metacogni-
tion. This means that they are more willing and able to regulate their own learn-
ing. Again, teenagers need to be allowed a certain level of freedom to manage
their own learning in ways which best suit their developing style in order to avoid
demotivation (see the chapter on style for further discussion of this issue).
• Harklau (2007) considers the effect of the adolescents’ developing sense of iden-
tity. This is intimately tied up with their vision of their future selves, and how
they want to be viewed by others. This, in turn, will affect motivation and will-
ingness to invest time and effort in learning language, which may or may not
accord with their future vision of themselves (see the chapter on motivation for
further discussion of this issue).
• Merga (2014) looks at the influence of peer pressure on motivation. This will
affect their willingness to invest time and effort in a learning endeavour which
may not be in harmony with peer expectations and judgements, which can be
harsh, and difficult for developing egos to deal with (more on this also in the
chapter on motivation).
Although adolescents can be challenging from the point of view of teachers who
may at times have difficulty maintaining a required level of discipline among indi-
viduals who are struggling to exercise their autonomy, manage peer relationships,
and develop their own identity, Costley (2018, p. 20) argues that “Instead of being a
hindrance, adolescence, and the co-occurring cognitive, emotional and psychologi-
cal changes that take place at this time, have a positive impact on learning and are
in fact beneficial, if classroom practices and learning opportunities are effectively
designed and delivered”. Similarly, therefore, to young learners, we might conclude
that successful language learning in adolescence depends not only on isolated vari-
ables such as aptitude, but on a complex mixture of factors such as motivation,
autonomy, style, cognitive development, affect and social influences. And, of course,
Background 15
we cannot overlook the major physiological changes which take place dynamically
over this period, and which inevitably impact learners’ psychological reactions,
including their response to contextual characteristics, such as the physical class-
room environment, their classmates and their teacher.
Adult Learners
Much of the research on adult learners has been negative in terms of older learner
success. Examples include:
• A well-known case study describes a 10-month study of Alberto, a 33-year-old

Costa Rican living in the USA. Although test results indicated that Alberto did
not lack in cognitive ability, he appeared to lack motivation to learn English and
made very little progress during the 10 months of the study (Schumann, 1975).
• Wes, a Japanese artist living in Hawaii, was also 33 years old. According to
Schmidt (1983), Wes had a strong drive to communicate, and his oral compe-
tence developed considerably. However, he showed little or no interest in formal
study, and, as a result, he remained unable to read or write in English and gram-
matical control remained low.
• Another example of an unsuccessful adult, Burling (1981) recounts his own
experience of trying to learn Swedish while spending a year as a guest professor
at a Swedish university. Burling was in his mid-50s, and he considered himself
to have high motivation and positive attitudes. Nevertheless, he judged his own
progress as “distinctly unsatisfactory” (p. 280).
• Griffiths (2003) reports the case of Yuki, a 44-year-old Japanese woman who
came to New Zealand with her children. Wanting to stay with her children, rather
than having to return to Japan leaving them behind, she applied for a student visa
and was placed in the lowest class, where she made minimal progress. Yuki
thought English was difficult to learn because “my mind is blank”, which she
ascribed to her age.
Nevertheless, in spite of these well-known studies which present a negative view

of adult language learners, there has been “growing evidence that some learners
who start learning as adults can achieve a native-like competence” (Ellis, 2008,
p. 31). Examples of positive studies include:
• Neufeld’s (1978) study of adult native speakers of English in Canada seemed to

indicate that adults could acquire native-like pronunciation when learning other
languages.
• Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, and Moselle (1994) document a case of a successful
adult language learner who achieved native-like performance in a new language
(Arabic) within about 2 years when her new husband was conscripted into the
army, and she was left in a situation of total immersion with her husband’s rela-
tives in Egypt.
16 2 Age
• A number of adult Dutch learners of English in a study by Bongaerts, van

Summeren, Planken, and Schils (1997) could not be distinguished from native
speakers, suggesting that “it is not impossible to achieve an authentic, native-like
pronunciation of a second language after a specified biological period of time”
(Bongaerts et al., 1997, p. 447).
• Although they found that overall, target language attainment was negatively cor-
related with age, Birdsong and Molis (2001, p. 235) nevertheless found “modest
evidence of nativelike attainment among late learners”.
• A case study reported by Griffiths (2003) describes Kang, a 41-year-old Korean
placed in the lowest elementary class when he arrived at the language school in
New Zealand. He had left his wife and young children in Korea and obviously
missed them. Nevertheless, Kang settled single-mindedly to his work, and by the
end of his 7-month course, he was working in the advanced class. Asked why he
thought he had made such good progress, Kang replied, “My heart is 100% want
to learn”. His motivation was to learn English in order to improve his job pros-
pects and provide better opportunities for his family, and he was more successful
than many of the much younger students with whom he studied.
• Profiles of successful adult learners are presented by Muńoz and Singleton
(2007) who asked L2 adult learners of English to re-tell the narrative of a movie.
Judged by native speakers of English, two of the students scored within the
native speaker range.
• Reichle (2010) discovered high levels of native-like proficiency among some of
the adult participants in his study. He concluded that “these results are incompat-
ible with the traditional notion of a critical period for second language acquisi-
tion” (p. 53).
• When Kinsella and Singleton (2014) investigated 20 adult Anglophone near-
native users of French, three of the participants (all married to a French spouse,
with either bilingual or French-speaking children, and strong links to the French
community) scored within the native speaker range. The authors noted that “a
number of affective variables seemed to play a markedly more important role
than maturational factors in the high attainment” (p. 441), and they concluded
that “native-likeness remains attainable until quite late in life” (p. 458).
• Study abroad students (N=102) were recruited by Baker-Smemoe, Dewey,
Bown, and Martinsen (2014). Results showed that cultural sensitivity and social
networks rather than age significantly contributed to learners’ target language
development.
• Although it is common to find studies claiming that younger is better, especially
for phonology, Moyer’s (2014) study found some “exceptional outcomes”
(p. 418) in phonology for late target language (TL) starters, and argued that “age
of onset (AO) by itself is not a sufficient explanation for attainment” (p. 421).
Studies such as these led Muńoz and Singleton (2011, p. 26) to argue for a “loos-
ening of the association” between age and language attainment. And, as with both
young learners and adolescents, a complex amalgamation of variables other than
age per se seem to contribute to successful language learning for adults. These
Explaining Age-related Differences in Language Learning 17
include motivation, affect, cultural and social factors, as well as exposure to the
target language context.
Explaining Age-related Differences in Language Learning
Possible explanations for age-related differences in language development are var-

ied, including neurological, psycho-affective, and contextual.
Neurological Maturation
From a neurological point of view, it has been suggested that there is a critical
period for language development (often known as the Critical Period Hypothesis or
CPH), during which language can be acquired or learnt more quickly and easily
than at other stages of life (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield and Roberts, 1959). Past this
point, the process of myelination progressively wraps the nerves of the brain in
myelin sheaths (Long, 1990) which, like concrete pathways in a garden, define
learning pathways, making it easier to get from one point to another, and removing
the need to re-learn information or procedures every time they are encountered, but
reducing flexibility. However, although much of the evidence seems to point to the
fact that younger students are more successful than older students, especially in the
long term (e.g. Harley, 1986; Oyama, 1976; Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1978), the
exceptions such as Julie (Ioup et al., 1994), as well as those mentioned by Bongaerts
et al. (1997), Muńoz and Singleton (2007) and Griffiths (2003) render any dogmatic
assertions on the subject unsustainable. As Bialystok and Hakuta (1999, p. 177) put
it: “biological restrictions such as brain maturation should not be so easily
overturned”.
In recent years, technological advances have made the exploration of brain activ-
ity increasingly viable. According to Paradis (1994), a first language is acquired
implicitly, whereas a language learned after the end of the critical period is learned
explicitly, and the two systems are developed in different areas of the brain. Ullman’s
(2001) Declarative/Procedural Model also argues for first and subsequent languages
being processed in different areas of the brain. However, according to Green’s
(2003) Convergence Hypothesis, both first and subsequent languages are mediated
by a common neurolinguistic network. Abutalebi (2008) also concludes that the
same neural structures are engaged for both first and subsequent languages.
Although research in this area is still relatively new, and results are often inconclu-
sive, contradictory and difficult to interpret (see Muńoz and Singleton, 2011 for
more details and discussion on this issue), evidence seems to be mounting that the
functioning of the neurolinguistic systems of the brain are not age-dependent, or at
least not entirely so. The fact probably remains, however, that most who do manage
to learn a new language to a high level usually started relatively young. If biological
age cannot explain this, we need to consider other possible factors.
18 2 Age
Psycho-affective Factors
Psycho-affective factors have been suggested as a major reason why younger learn-
ers are often more successful than older learners at learning a new language (e.g.
Krashen and Terrell, 1983). These variables might include cognitive differences
(such as aptitude), affective factors (such as culture or language shock, motivation
and investment) or various other individual differences.
Cognitive differences between older and younger learners have been hypothe-
sized as an explanation of the results of several studies which have found that adults
often make faster initial progress with language learning, but younger learners are
more successful in the long run (e.g. Harley, 1986; Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle,
1978). More recently, Muñoz (2006) came to a similar conclusion: the older learn-
ers performed better than the younger ones initially (after 200 hours of instruction),
but after 726 hours, the gap had decreased considerably. Krashen (1985) explains
older learners’ faster initial progress in terms of their ability to negotiate meaning,
while according to Ellis (1985), older students can consciously think about the rules
which gives them an initial advantage.
It has been suggested that affective variables such as culture shock (which leaves
the learner feeling confused and excluded) and language shock (which leaves the
learner feeling nervous and humiliated) may be the most important factors associ-
ated with adult language learning (e.g. Schumann, 1975, 1976). Language and cul-
ture shock are likely to affect motivation, since, as one matures, and already has a
well-established linguistic resource at one’s disposal, the motivation to invest in
learning a new language may be challenging to find. Indeed, it has been suggested
that motivation is the most significant single factor which determines how success-
ful an individual will be at learning a language, irrespective of age (e.g. Dörnyei,
MacIntyre, and Henry 2015; Ushioda, 2008). It is motivation which will determine
the level of investment (in terms of how hard they work, for how long, and how
much they are prepared to sacrifice in terms of other resources) learners are pre-
pared to make (e.g. Norton Peirce, 1995; Darvin & Norton, 2015; Norton, 2012).
In addition, there is a potentially almost infinite number of individual variables
which might impact on language learning. Commonly listed among these factors
are gender, aptitude, personality, learning style, strategies, attitude, beliefs, auton-
omy and prior learning experience as well as personal factors such as family, job
and health. When these factors are all combined, they produce an incredibly com-
plex and dynamic picture, which, in its totality, constitutes a learner’s sense of
identity.
Identity is increasingly being recognized as a powerful determiner of successful
language learning (e.g. Gao and Lamb, 2011; Norton, 2013). As we mature, our
sense of who we are (and are not) becomes more established, and we may tend to
become less willing to accept change of any kind. Our language is one factor which
contributes to our sense of who we are, as noted by the adult university students in
a study by Soruç and Griffiths (2015). Although there was some initial uptake of
native-speaker features of spoken English in this study, by the time of the delayed
post-test, most of these features were no longer being used, which several of the
Explaining Age-related Differences in Language Learning 19
students attributed to conflict with their own identity. In other words, as Piller (2002)
comments, identity is actually more important than age when it comes to learning a
language.
Social and Ecological Context
The concept of social distance was introduced by Schumann (1976) to describe how
similar or dissimilar cultures are from each other and to explain why people tend to
find some cultures (and their languages) easier to adapt to than others. Young people
generally seem to have less problem with social distance than adults, since they
commonly want to identify with a peer group, which will often mean that they are
willing to adopt the peer group’s way of speaking; in other words, they are less
“culture-bound” (Valdes, 1986). Adults, however, often deliberately retain a distinc-
tive accent in order to maintain their identity. Socio-affective variables are consid-
ered by some to be the most powerful influences on the differences in language
learning ability according to age. For instance, describing his own “distinctly unsat-
isfactory” (p. 280) attempts to learn Swedish when he spent a year as guest profes-
sor in Sweden, Burling (1981) is in no doubt that “generalized social changes”
(p. 290) are the main cause of age-related differences in language development,
which mean “an adult is likely to give up and conclude that he has lost the capacity
to learn a language” (p. 284).
A key feature which distinguishes one sociocultural group from another is the
ecological context in which they operate (e.g. Kramsch, 1993). Children who move
from one context to another often have little difficulty, but adults may struggle to
adapt to different customs or, perhaps, a different language, which may conflict with
their own established ways of doing things and require a renegotiation of identity
(Pavlenko and Blackledge, 2003). According to their age, it is possible that learning
context or the ecological environment may affect students differently, as argued by
Pfenninger (2017). Learning situation can vary considerably from a formal class-
room to naturalistic environments (where students learn by being immersed in the
target language), to distance learning. Classrooms can also vary greatly, and classes
may be conducted during the day or at night. All of these ecological factors may
affect students differently according to their individual characteristics, including
their age.
Perhaps most important of all contextual factors in terms of target language
development is the opportunity for exposure to the target language. Marinova-Todd
(2003), for instance, found that out of 30 participants from 25 countries, the 6 most
proficient students all lived with native speakers of the target language. Moyer
(2009) also discovered that interactive experience in the target language was more
critical for target language development than instruction. Likewise, in a study
involving 11 Spanish students, Muńoz and Singleton (2007) found that the most
proficient learners were living with native speakers of English. In other words,
although, perhaps, merely living in an input-rich environment does not necessarily
guarantee that a learner will be motivated to use the opportunity to learn, there is
20 2 Age
evidence to suggest that such an environment maximizes the opportunity for effec-
tive language development for those who are motivated to utilize its affordances.
A Small-scale Case Study of a Successful Adult Language Learner
Methodology
In order to explore some of the points made above, a small-scale case study
was carried out using a narrative methodology to gather data since this provides
authentic data related to the lives of individuals as told through their own stories
(e.g. Barkhuizen, 2011). The participant was asked to write her own language
learning autobiography, recounting her experiences of learning a new language.
Participant
Olga is Russian, aged 34 at the time of the study. When she married her
Turkish husband, they moved to Istanbul, where she had been for about 3 years.
Although she knew none of the language before her marriage, in her new home,
she obtained jobs with an import-export company, and then as an English teacher
in a primary school, where her Head of Department and colleagues described her
Turkish (which was the language used for staff-room communication) as “not
quite native, but very good and fluent”.
Olga was asked to write about how she learnt her new language, her motiva-
tion, and how she thought she had been able to reach such a high standard of
communicative ability in such a relatively short time. Her narrative is reproduced
as she wrote it, including any “infelicities” for the sake of authenticity.
Olga (aged 34 at the time of the study)

My first foreign language was English. I started to learn it when I was a
child, but it wasn’t really deep learning—just 3 hours in a week at state school.
But I really loved English and I learnt it because I wanted to do it.
I started to learn Turkish after I met my husband and got married. I was 31.
First year in Turkey I stayed at home as a housewife and of course I learnt
almost nothing—maybe just some language which was enough just to do
some shopping in the market, but not buy something really important (for
example things which need to be discussed in a detailed way before paying
for them).
After one year I started to work in Import-Export company. I was just an
only foreigner among 7 workers in our department. First days were so awful—
I didn’t know anything—I didn’t know how to use computers which were
completely in Turkish, I couldn’t get any information I needed from the work-
ers who couldn’t speak any English and I was totally depend on my col-
leagues and I had to ask them to help me every time and it made me so
upset. I hate to be dependent on someone and I hate to disturb someone. It was
my main motivation. I was trying to learn the language and I was asking
(continued)
Discussion 21
(continued)
everyone about everything I didn’t know. Even jokes were translated for me
and I was laughing after everyone stopped laughing. It was so funny for my
colleagues and for me.
Day by day I was picking up some language from people and from every
situation I was in—in the public transport, at work, at home, from TV. I didn’t
attend any language course, I didn’t take any private lesson. I just read gram-
mar rules of the language aspects which I wanted to understand at that
moment. For example, one day I want to say something using which equal
“if …… will” (1st condition) in English—I read about it in a grammar book
and next day I tried to use it. And, of course I heard this grammar construction
everywhere in that day. And one day I realized that I understand almost every-
thing they say. It took about 2 and half years to learn.
And, of course age is not a problem to learn any language. So, why did I
learn a new language after 30? I can say 50% my abilities and 50% my family
and friends and of course my life situations here—job, social life etc. I think
that everyone can learn any foreign language if a person has some abilities
and own motivation. I didn’t get any really serious problems while learning.
And the older I get the easier I understand language systems and easier
learn new words. ◄
Discussion
Judging from Olga’s narrative, and also from feedback from her colleagues, it would
seem that Olga was a remarkably successful learner of her new language, having
become “fluent” (her Head of Department’s term) in less than 3 years, a success rate
roughly equivalent to Julie in Ioup et al.’s (1994) study. What reasons might there be
for this? Her narrative suggests several possible contributing factors:
• Olga herself seems to believe she has “abilities” (aptitude). Although we have no
way of knowing how accurate this self-assessment might be, the fact that she
believes this to be the case suggests a level of self-efficacy which has been shown
to be a factor in successful learning (see the chapter on affect).
• Olga’s description of how she “was picking up some language” suggests a level
of autonomy. She did not just wait for someone else to provide her with the lan-
guage she needed—she assumed agency and found what she needed for herself
(see the chapter on autonomy).
• She was motivated. Even when she was learning English, she describes intrinsic
motivation. Her motivation to learn Turkish may well have been essentially inte-
grative so that she could fit in with her new family, friends and colleagues (see
the chapter on motivation).
22 2 Age
• Her socio-ecological situation. Interestingly, she describes herself as learning

“almost nothing” during her first year when she “stayed at home”. It was not
until she got out into a context where she interacted with other people when she
needed to use the language and interact socially, that she really learnt. This is in
accord with the findings of others (e.g. Kinsella & Singleton, 2014) regarding the
importance of social interaction and exposure to the language.
• Experience. Olga’s suggestion that learning language gets easier as she gets
older is interesting. Of course, it runs contrary to much previous thinking on the
subject (especially the Critical Period Hypothesis) and deserves further research.
We might, therefore, infer from Olga’s narrative, that reasons for her success are
complex, dynamic and dependent on a range of personal characteristics interacting
with socio-ecological factors. The results of Olga’s narrative would therefore seem
to support evidence from other studies (e.g. Marinova-Todd, 2003; Moyer, 2009;
Muńoz & Singleton, 2007) that learning a language as an adult is far from impos-
sible. On the contrary, it would seem that it is possible to learn the language until
quite mature, given sufficient motivation and exposure.
Implications for Language Learning and Teaching
If we accept that adults can learn language, we must nevertheless consider that they
may not necessarily learn in the same way that children do. They may, for instance,
need to be allowed more cognitive engagement with the language (e.g. by learning
grammar rules) in order to utilize their more highly developed cognitive abilities.
Given that cognition has tended to be downplayed in recent years in favour of com-
municative approaches, this may require some re-thinking of contemporary teach-
ing methodologies. An example of this might be Hiro in Griffiths (2003), an older
Japanese man who came to New Zealand to study English because “I have worked
hard all my life: now I am going to have some fun”. However, he did not find con-
temporary communicative methodology with students a fraction of his age entirely
easy, requiring some methodological adjustment on the part of his teacher (for more
details on this case, see the chapter on style). Adults may also require more allow-
ances to be made for established identities than is necessary with children. And
contextual issues such as the fact that many adults may be studying in the evening
after work when they come to class already tired may also need to be considered.
Furthermore, if we accept that adults can learn language, we may need to recon-
sider the degree to which it is reasonable to assess learning according to native-
speaker criteria, an issue which applies to learners of all ages and debated at some
length by Muńoz and Singleton (2011) and Birdsong (2014). It is quite possible that
non-native speakers may get to be extremely effective communicators in a new
language, but they may still retain an accent or other features transferred from their
L1: indeed, this may be something they choose to do in order to preserve identity.
And when we add to this the difficulty (if not the impossibility) of defining what
actually is the “standard” accent or usage, even within speakers of the same lan-
guage, the use of native norms as a criterion gets to be even more questionable.
Conclusion 23
Questions for Ongoing Research
The issue of age has caused much controversy over the years, and research studies
have often produced apparently contradictory results. Because of this, many age-
related questions await conclusive answers. These include:
1. Is there an optimal age at which to start language learning? If so, what is it?
2. What are the special needs of adolescent language learners? How can these be
accommodated?
3. What are the best conditions for adult language learning?
4. Is it reasonable/necessary to assess learners who already have an L1 of their own
by the standards of native speakers of the new language? If not, how should they
be assessed?
5. How do other learner characteristics interact with age when learning language?
6. How do social or ecological conditions interact with age when learning language?
7. What is the effect of experience on language learning?
Conclusion
Although the Critical Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts,
1959) tended to dominate the thinking on the age issue in language learning for
quite a long time, more recent research has tended to cast considerable doubt on the
assumptions made on the basis of this hypothesis. Indeed, numerous studies have
shown that mature learners can and do learn language very successfully (see above).
It is probably undeniable that the majority of successful language learners learn
when they are younger (e.g. Birdsong and Molis, 2001; Harley, 1986; Oyama, 1976;
Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1978), but to go from this observation to conclude that
adults cannot learn language is not logical. There may be any number of other rea-
sons why adults, generally, do not learn language as successfully as children, includ-
ing motivation, identity, socio-ecological issues, personal circumstances, family/
employment demands, time and social constraints and individual characteristics.
The complex and dynamic interactions of these factors are likely to be powerful
determinants of the time and energy an adult has to devote to the task of learning a
new language and all of these factors need to be viewed holistically. The fact that,
in spite of these constraints, there are numerous examples of adults who do in fact
manage to achieve high levels of proficiency in a new language (see above) places
the existence of a critical period for language learning in serious doubt.
Questions to Consider
1. What age range do you think should be included in “young learner”?

2. What age range should be included in “adolescent learner”?
3. When does one become an “adult”?
4. Why do you think the global trend is towards starting language learning
younger and younger?
24 2 Age
5. Do you agree that adolescent learners can be challenging? Do you have any
ideas (perhaps from your own experience) about how to deal with these
challenges?
6. Which of the explanations of age-related differences (neurological, psycho-
affective, socio-ecological) do you find most convincing?
7. Which do you find more convincing, the positive or the negative results about
adult language learning?
8. What do you think are some of the reasons Olga managed to achieve commu-
nicative competence in her new language so quickly?
9. Do you agree that there are problems with assessing learners’ pronunciation
by native-speaker standards? What are they, and what should we do about them?
10. Do you agree that there is serious doubt about the Critical Period?
► Follow-up Task Conduct a case study of an individual whose successful or

unsuccessful efforts to learn a new language are of interest.
► Suggestions for Further Reading In addition to the references cited in text and
in the reference list, readers might like to consider:
Singleton, D. (1989). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon, Avon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
This is now a “classic” on the subject of age in language learning, but it remains
important for those who want to understand how the concept has developed.
García Mayo, M., & García Lecumberri, M. (Eds.) (2003). Age and the acquisition
of English as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
This book contains many different perspectives on the issue of age in language
learning, written by experts in the field.
Pfenninger, S., & Singleton, D. (2017). Beyond age effects in instructional L2 learn-
ing: Revisiting the age factor. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Combining quantitative and qualitative methods, this book examines the role of age
of onset and offers a longitudinal view of foreign language learning, taking
account of contextual, individual socio-affective, and instructional factors.
References
Abutalebi, J. (2008). Neural aspects of second language representation and language control. Acta
Psychologica, 128, 466–468.
Ausubel, D. (1964). Adults vs. children in second language learning: Psychological consider-
ations. Modern Language Journal, 48, 420–424.
Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R. (2014). Variables affecting L2 gains
during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 464–486.
Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 391–444.
References 25
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differ-
ences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and
the critical period hypothesis (pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis.
New York: Routledge.
Birdsong, D. (2014). The critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition: Tailoring the
coat of many colors. In M. Pawlak & L. Aronin (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics
and multilingualism (pp. 43–50). Switzerland: Springer.
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational effects in second language
acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249.
Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment
in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(4),
447–465.
Burling, R. (1981). Social constraints on adult language learning. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native lan-
guage and foreign language acquisition (pp. 279–290). New York: New York Academy of
Sciences.
Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S., & Hargreaves, M. (1974). Primary French in the balance.
Windsor: NFER Publishing.
Costley, T. (2018). Learning as an adolescent. In A. Burns & J. Richards (Eds.), Cambridge
guide to learning English as a second language (pp. 19–26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learn-
ing. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gao, X., & Lamb, T. (2011). Exploring links between identity, motivation and autonomy. In
G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning
(pp. 1–8). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Granena, G., & Long, M. (2013a). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ulti-
mate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343.
Granena, G., & Long, M. (Eds.). (2013b). Sensitive periods, language aptitude and ultimate
attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Green, D. (2003). The neural basis of the lexicon and the grammar in L2 acquisition. In R. van
Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (Eds.), The interface between syntax and the lexicon in
second language acquisition (pp. 197–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Language learning strategy use and proficiency. Retrieved from http://80-
www.lib.umi.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/dissertations/gateway.
Griffiths, C. (2008). Age and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good
language learners (pp. 35–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffiths, C., & Soruç, A. (2018). Learning language as adults. In J. Richards & A. Burns (Eds.),
The Cambridge guide to second language learning (pp. 27–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Harklau, L. (2007). The adolescent English language learner: Identities lost and found. In
J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching,
springer international handbooks of education (Vol. 11, pp. 639–655). New York: Springer.
Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. Doughty &
M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539–588). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
26 2 Age
Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period
hypothesis: A case study of a successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73–98.
Kinsella, C., & Singleton, D. (2014). Much more than age. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 441–462.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. Hayward, California: Hayward Press.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Llanes, A. (2010). Children and adults learning English in a study abroad context. Ph.D. disserta-
tion: University of Barcelona.
Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12, 251–285.
Marinova-Todd, S. (2003). Know your grammar: What the knowledge of syntax and morphology
in an L2 reveals about the critical period for second/foreign language acquisition. In M. Garcia-
Mayo & M. Garcia-Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign lan-
guage (pp. 59–73). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Merga, M. (2014). Peer group and friend influences on the social acceptability of adolescent book
reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 472–482.
Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in
L2 phonological attainment. In T. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA
(pp. 159–174). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Moyer, A. (2014). Exceptional outcomes in L2 phonology: The critical factors of learner engage-
ment and self-regulation. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 418–440.
Muñoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Muńoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2007). Foreign accent in advanced learners: Two successful profiles.
The EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 171–190.
Muńoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attain-
ment. Language Teaching, 44, 1–35.
Neufeld, G. (1978). On the acquisition of prosodic and articulatory features in adult language
learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32(2), 163–174.
Nishikawa, T. (2014). Non-nativeness in near-native child L2 starters of Japanese: Age and the
acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 504–529.
Norton, B. (2012). Investment. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of second language
acquisition (pp. 343–344). New York: Routledge.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment and language learning. TESOL Quarterly,
29, 9–31.
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period in the acquisition of a non-native phonological system.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261–285.
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilin-
gualism. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of second languages (pp. 393–419).
London: Academic Press.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2003). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Pfenninger, S. (2017). Not so individual after all: An ecological approach to age as an individ-
ual difference variable in a classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching,
7(1), 19–46.
References 27
Pfenninger, S., & Singleton, D. (2017a). Recent advances in quantitative methods in age-related
research. In S. Pfenninger & J. Navracsics (Eds.), Future research directions for applied lin-
guistics (pp. 101–119). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pfenninger, S., & Singleton, D. (2017b). Beyond age effects in instructional L2 learning: Revisiting
the age factor. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pfenninger, S., & Singleton, D. (2019). Starting age overshadowed: The primacy of differential
environmental and family support effects on second language attainment in an instructional
context. Language Learning, 69(S1), 207–234.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piller, I. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: Identity and success in second language learning.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 179–206.
Reichle, R. (2010). Judgments of information structure in L2 French: Nativelike performance
and the critical period hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 48(1), 53–85.
Ryan, A., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’
motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal,
38(2), 437–460.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence:
A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language
acquisition (pp. 137–174). New York: Newbury House.
Schumann, J. (1975). Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 25(2), 209–235.
Schumann, J. (1976). Second language acquisition: The Pidginisation hypothesis. Language
Learning, 26(2), 391–408.
Singleton, D., & Lesniewska, J. (2012). Age and SLA: Research highways and bye-ways. In
M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teach-
ing (pp. 97–117). Berlin: Springer.
Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence
from language learning. Child Development, 49, 1119–1128.
Soruç, A., & Griffiths, C. (2015). Identity and the spoken grammar dilemma. System, 50, 32–42.
Swain, M. (1981). Time and timing in bilingual education. Language Learning, 31, 1–6.
Tragant, E., & Victoria, M. (2006). Reported strategy use and age. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the
rate of foreign language learning (pp. 208–237). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ullman, M. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 717–726.
Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from
good language learners (pp. 19–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Valdes, J. (1986). Culture bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sex/Gender
3
1. What do you see as the difference between sex and gender?

2. Do you agree that females are better language learners than males or
vice versa?
3. How does sex/gender interact with other variables, such as beliefs, style,
race/ethnicity/nationality/culture, aptitude/proficiency, personality, strate-
gies, autonomy, affect/emotion, motivation or socio-ecological context?
Background
The two terms which form the title of this chapter are often used more-or-less syn-
onymously. Strictly applied, however, sex is a biological attribute (whether the indi-
vidual is male or female). Gender, on the other hand, is more a culturally constructed
concept, which may include commonly accepted behavioural norms, language,
dress codes, etc., and which is often described in terms of masculine and feminine.
When we first learn about a new baby, sex is often the first individual difference
to attract a question: “Is it a boy or a girl”? everyone wants to know. And a child’s
sex will begin to shape its identity from the time it is born (or even before). From
this time forward, an individual’s sex “will be a powerful factor contributing to
opportunities which will be open or closed” (Griffiths, 2018, p. 56). In fact, as
Sunderland (1994, p.211) explains, “the effects of gender roles, relations and identi-
ties are everywhere. Ironically, because of this, in much writing and thinking on
English language teaching, gender appears nowhere”.
Why is there such reluctance to deal with this topic, we might wonder? Is it
because it seems so obvious it is hardly worth further investigation? Is it because of
nervousness since it is a topic where it is treacherously easy for the unwary to
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52900-0_3
30 3 Sex/Gender
inadvertently stray into politically incorrect territory? As Nyikos (2008, p.74)

clearly states, however “the potential for gender to affect language learning can…not
be ignored”.
So, what is the effect of sex/gender on language development? There are a number
of studies which investigate this relationship (for instance, Bacon, 1992; Boyle, 1987;
Burstall, 1975; Eisenstein, 1982; Farhady, 1982; Nyikos, 1990, 2008; Sunderland,
1998, 2000). On a biological level, some research appears to indicate that women
have more nerve cells in the left half of the brain where language is centred, and, in
addition, women often appear to use both sides of the brain (Legato, 2005). It is com-
monly believed that females are better language learners than males, (e.g. Ellis, 1994;
Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, although, as these authors point out, consistent
research evidence to support this belief has proven elusive). It is also possible that
girls’ linguistic development may be as much a social phenomenon as it is a biological
one, since, as Nyikos (2008, p.75) notes: “much of the perceived female superiority in
language capability may be due to the added effort which adults tend to lavish on baby
girls compared with baby boys”. And if we are to consider the relationship of sex/
gender to the development of linguistic proficiency, we also need to consider the rela-
tionships to other variables, such as culture, aptitude, personality, style, strategies,
autonomy, beliefs, affect and motivation. Let us look at these one at a time.
Culture
If we refer to the study of culture shock reported in Chap. 4 of this volume and
analyse the data according to sex/gender, we find no significant differences
according to any of the items, in either cultural context (Australia and Turkey).
Neither males nor females report being significantly more homesick or lonely.
Neither report having more difficulty with being understood, understanding
others or making friends. There are no significant differences for problems
such as religion, culture, or getting on with people. Neither are males or
females more or less concerned about food, prejudice, feelings of not belong-
ing or people’s perceived coldness. Almost the only suggestion of a sex/gen-
der difference is Ana’s comment that she feels some prejudice because she
wears a scarf. In spite of this, she prefers life in Australia, which, presumably,
suggests that her concern over this matter is not too strong.
In a study of international students’ views, Çetin, Bahar and Griffiths
(2017) also found that there were relatively few significant differences
between men’s (N = 185) and women’s (N = 124) views of Turkish culture,
and most were only at the p<.05 level. The results of these studies would seem
to indicate that there is little difference regarding how “culture bound”
(Valdes, 1986) males are versus females. Since, however, there is relatively
little research in this area, it is a question which might be an interesting one to
explore further.
(continued)
Background 31
(continued)
Aptitude/proficiency
As discussed in Chap. 5, language aptitude is a complicated concept to
define and measure. Since, however, it is commonly defined in terms of
“capacity [or]… facility” (Carroll, 1981, p.86), or as a “specific talent” (Wen,
Biedroń & Skehan, 2017, p.1) for learning language, it is often assumed that
aptitude contributes to proficiency (e.g. Artieda & Muñoz, 2016), and some
studies have discovered a female superiority. Green and Oxford (1995), for
instance, found the female language learners in their study, conducted at a
Central American university, to be significantly more proficient than the male
students.
However, no significant proficiency differences according to sex were found
by Griffiths (2003) in a study which included 348 international students studying
over 7 levels (beginner, elementary, upper elementary, pre-intermediate,
intermediate, upper-intermediate, advanced) at a private language school in
Auckland, New Zealand. When grouped according to sex, there were 114
(32.8%) male students and 234 (67.2%) female students. According to the
results, although the females had a slightly higher median level of proficiency
(median = 3.5) than the males (median = 3), the difference was not significant
(Mann-Whitney U). See Table 3.1.
And contrary to the findings by Green and Oxford (1995) and Griffiths
(2003), Çeribaş (2017) discovered a higher pass rate for the final proficiency
exam (for which the pass rate is 60%) among his 71 male students (67.6%)
than among his 68 female students (61.8%) who were studying at a Turkish
university. This difference approached but did not quite reach, a .05 level of
significance (p<.06). These results are set out in Table 3.2.
Table 3.1 Median levels of Proficiency

proficiency according to sex Sex median (7 levels)
and across all students Male (n = 114) 3.0
Female (n = 234) 3.5
All students (n = 348) 3.0
Table 3.2 Statistics regarding students’ sex and success rates in the profi-
ciency exam
Fail Pass Total
Gender Male 23 48 71
Female 26 42 68
Total 49 90 139
(continued)
32 3 Sex/Gender
(continued)
As we can see from just the few examples noted above, findings related to
sex/gender and proficiency are very inconsistent. In studies where a difference
has been discovered, it has in general been small or not statistically significant.
It would therefore seem reasonably safe to generalize that both men and
women can be good language learners. Given, however, that the most recent
study noted above (Çeribaş, 2017) found that the male students outperformed
the females, a result which runs counter to most previous findings, we might
wonder whether this is a general trend (that is, that males are improving in the
area of language learning) or whether this result was atypical—a question
which might be worthy of further investigation.
Personality
Given that personality is such a salient characteristic of every human being,
it is, perhaps surprising to find so little literature relating to it in relation to
language learning. One reason for this might be that it is a very broad concept
which is difficult to pin down exactly. However, the definition provided by
Richards and Schmidt (2010), according to whom personality covers “those
aspects of an individual’s behaviour, attitudes, beliefs, thought, actions and
feelings which are seen as typical and distinctive of that person” (p.431)
probably covers most bases.
If literature relating personality to language learning is rare, it is, perhaps
not surprising to find that literature including personality, language learning
and gender is even more scarce. Commenting informally on 6 of the
interviewees in her study, Griffiths (2018) notes that the 3 extroverts are all
male, while only 1 male is considered an introvert. Both of the females,
however, are considered introverted.
When Soruç analysed the data from his study on personality (Chap. 6)
according to gender using the nonparametric two-independent-samples test of
difference (Mann-Whitney U), he found that, of the 10 items in the
questionnaire, female students rated one item (Item 2) significantly more
highly than male students, who rated Items 3 and 10 significantly more highly
than female students. In other words, while female students viewed their
personalities as more considerate and kind to others, male students tended to
see themselves as lazy but with high imagination. According to Yanati’s effect
size calculator (online), however, the effect sizes are all small (Plonsky &
Oswald, 2014), with even the largest (being considerate and kind to others)
accounting for only about 10.05% of the variance, as we can see from
Table 3.3.
Style
In order to investigate differences in stylistic patterns according to gender,
we might look at the results of a study by Griffiths and Inceçay (2016) reported
in Chap. 7 of this volume which suggested that the top-scoring students
(continued)
Background 33
(continued)
Table 3.3 Significant Items Gender difference
personality differences 2 P = .001, E = 10.05%, females
according to gender higher
3 P = .004, E = 6.79%, males
higher
10 P = .003, E = 7.14%, males
higher
(N = 7) show much more flexibility in their style preferences than the lower-
scoring students (N = 7). If we examine these results according to gender, we
find that there were 2 male students among the top-scoring students and only
1 among the bottom-scoring students. If we further examine the ratings
according to gender, we find that among the top-scoring students, the 2 males
account for 6 (20%, or 10% each) of the top ratings (rating = 5 = strongly
agree), while the 5 females account for the remainder (n = 29 = 80% or 16%
each). In other words, the top-scoring females are more flexible in their style
choices than the males. The same pattern is even more in evidence among the
lower-scoring students, where the 1 male accounts for 4 of the 6 (66%)
strongly disagree ratings (rating = 1), while his female fellow-students provide
only 2 (33%) such low ratings among the 6 of them (5.5% each), suggesting
that the male student is much less flexible in his style choices than his female
classmates.
Of course, these numbers are far too limited to be able to come to any firm
conclusions. However, they point to an intriguing possibility, that, according
to these results, females are more flexible in their stylistic preferences than
males, which might be another exciting direction for further research.
Language Learning Strategies
Studies which explore language learning strategy use according to sex/
gender are not common; nevertheless, there are a few. Most studies in this
area seem to have reported greater use of language learning strategies
by women:
• After studying the language learning strategies used by more than 1,200
undergraduate foreign language students at a major university in the mid-
western USA, Oxford and Nyikos (1989)
• concluded that sex/gender had a “profound influence” (p.296): these dif-
ferences indicated that females used strategies more frequently than males.
• Reporting on an exploratory study undertaken as part of a larger study at
the Foreign Service Institute, Ehrman and Oxford (1989) concluded that
women reported definitely more use of strategies than men. The same
authors in a later article (1995) again reported that females tended to use
language learning strategies more often than males.
(continued)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
To Stop Rattling of Windows
Annoyance from the rattling of windows may be overcome by
attaching a small block to the side of the window casing so that it will
engage the sash and hold it firmly. The block should be of ¹⁄₂-in.
wood, about 3 in. long, 1 in. wide, and have one end rounded off. A
screw is fixed through the block near the rounded end and driven
into the window casing at such a point that when the block is turned
upward on its pivot the rounded end will act like a cam and force the
sash firmly against its grooves.
Practical Bracket for Garden Hose
Care in the storage of a garden hose will pay the owner in the
longer life of it, and the homemade bracket shown in the sketch
suggests a convenient method of caring for the hose. A portion of a
barrel was sawed off at one of the hoops, and after reinforcing it by
nailing the hoops and inserting shelves, it was nailed to the wall. The
hose may be coiled over it in shape to be easily carried to the lawn
or garden, for use. The shelves provide space for an oilcan for the
lawn mower, and other accessories.
Making Filing Envelopes Quickly
Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Fig. 4 Fig. 3
Folders Like That in Figure 1 may be Glued to Form Envelopes, Figure 2, or

Cut Down to the Size Shown in Figure 3, for Use in Combination, Figure 4
Folders in which large cards, calendars, posters, etc., are
commonly mailed may be utilized to make convenient filing cases.
Envelopes of the type shown in the sketch, with leatherboard and
cord fasteners for holding the flaps together, may be cut to a uniform
size or used in any smaller size desired, and, by gluing the flaps A
and B, will provide serviceable containers. Small tools or other
objects likely to injure a single-thickness folder, or drop out of it, may
be stored in double envelopes made in this way.
Yardstick on Tool Rack
The Brass Plug and Angle Are Convenient Additions to the Yardstick, Which
Forms the Front of the Tool Rack
I have derived considerable satisfaction from the use of a yardstick

fitted above my workbench. A plug of brass, having a center-punch
mark, was inserted at the zero point on the yardstick. This is
convenient in setting dividers and other instruments. Below the plug
was fixed a small brass angle, set so that its inner face was at the
zero point. This is useful in measuring pieces from a finished end. If
the end of the yardstick is at the zero point it is necessary to attach a
small extension to take the brass plug.—V. A. Rettich, Hollis, N. Y.
Bicycle Runner for Winter Use
The Mudguard is Fastened to the Rim of the Wheel and Acts as a Runner
over Ice and Snow
A bicycle may be used with satisfactory results in winter by
arranging a runner under the front wheel, which is lashed to the fork
as indicated in the sketch. The mudguard is used as a runner by
releasing it and dropping it to the position shown. It is then tied
securely to the rim of the wheel and the wheel is tied at the top to the
fork. This idea may be adapted by providing a special runner of
sheet metal, making it unnecessary to wear the mudguard.—C. H.
McCaslin, Portland, Ore.
Homemade Snowshoe Toe Clips
The Uppers of an Old Pair of Shoes were Used to Make a Set of Toe Clips for
Snowshoes
The uppers from a pair of worn-out shoes may be made into a

serviceable set of toe clips for snowshoes by cutting them off, as
shown in the sketch, and fitting them to the lacing of the snowshoes.
The clip is fastened in place by passing the tying strap through slots
in the former, under the lacing of the snowshoe, and then around the
ankle in the usual manner of fastening.—Richard F. Lufkin,
Dorchester, Mass.
Mounting Tracing-Cloth Drawings on Muslin
Tracings mounted on muslin will give long wear and are more
satisfactory in handling than the unmounted drawings. The method
of mounting them is as follows: Stretch a piece of starched muslin,
slightly larger than the drawing, on a flat, smooth board, fastening it
with tacks. Coat the back of the tracing with a good varnish, and
place it, face down, on a flat surface so that it may partly dry and
become tacky, which usually takes two hours. Place the tracing upon
the stretched muslin, varnished side down, and place a smooth
sheet of wrapping paper over it. Using a moderately warm flatiron,
and beginning at the center of the tracing, iron toward the edges,
applying moderate pressure. To remove the tracing from the cloth, it
is necessary to warm the cloth with the iron and strip the tracing and
cloth apart gradually.—John W. Grantland, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sandpapering Square Edges on Small Machine
Bases
The woodwork of small electrical or experimental machines and
devices often detracts from the workmanship because proper care is
not taken in finishing the edges. To smooth off the ends of a small
baseboard squarely, proceed as follows: Square up a piece of 2 by
4-in. stock, 1 ft. long; place a flat sheet of sandpaper on the bench
and set the 1-ft. block on top of it, holding it in place with the left
hand. Hold the piece to be squared up firmly against the block and
rub it on the sandpaper. A square edge of smooth finish will result.
The edges should, of course, be planed as smoothly as possible
before sanding in this way.—John D. Adams, Phoenix, Ariz.
Enlarged Lantern Pictures as Guides for Scenic
Painting
Scenery for an Amateur Theatrical Performance was Made by Painting

Outlines Projected from a Lantern
Scenery for a home-talent theatrical performance was required,

and since the services of an expert in that line were not available, an
interesting method of obtaining satisfactory sketches for the figures
and other objects in the background was devised. Colored lantern
slides of scenes suitable for the purpose were selected and
projected upon the canvas to be painted, as shown in the illustration.
The outlines were drawn around the projected figures, making them
as accurate as the original, and far better than would have been
possible otherwise by an amateur painter. The colors were applied
following the original model, with satisfactory results. By the use of
various portions of slides, it was possible to place figures and
outdoor effects on the background which was obtained from the first
slide used. A factor which must be considered in using this method is
that the picture on the canvas will be reversed as to right and left
positions compared with the original, if a direct-reflection projector of
the type used with post cards is employed.—Thomas R. Milligan,
Fort Worth, Texas.
Three-Caster Truck for Moving Crates and
Furniture
A convenient truck for handling heavy objects, especially in the
home where commercial devices for this purpose are not available,
is shown in the illustration. It consists of a frame built up of three 1¹⁄₄
by 2 by 14-in. strips, fixed to a disk, ⁷⁄₈ by 12 in. in size. Revolving
casters are mounted under the ends of the arms, giving great
freedom of movement in transporting loads. The three-caster
arrangement is better than the use of four casters, because it
accommodates itself to irregularities in the floor.—Armydas E.
Sturdivant, Muncie, Ind.
¶The burner of an acetylene bicycle lamp, fitted to an ordinary gas

jet, will produce a very hot flame.
Inserting or Correcting on Typewritten Bound
Sheets
It is frequently necessary that typewritten insertions or corrections
be made in papers which have been typed and bound, usually by
rivets along the top edge. It is difficult to remove the rivets and
replace them satisfactorily. To make such insertions, feed a blank
sheet of paper into the typewriter until its feeding edge is even with
the upper edge of the guide fingers. Then insert the bottom edge of
the sheet on which the correction is to be made, underneath the
sheet already in the machine; reverse-feed the sheet to be corrected
into the typewriter. Corrections may then be made in the usual
manner.—A. J. Cook, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Tire Pump Made of Gas Piping
A tire pump actuated by the explosions in the cylinder of an
automobile engine, and made of materials easily obtainable, is
shown in detail in the illustration. A section of iron pipe of a diameter
to fit one of the ports, and about 4 in. long, as shown in Fig. 2, is
provided with a reducer, a tee, and two caps. The inside of the pipe
is turned up true in a lathe and fitted with a piston, the head for which
is shown in Fig. 1. The head is built up of a wooden drum, washers,
and leather packing disks. The washers should be slightly smaller in
diameter than the chamber, and the leather disks make it air-tight.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Automobile Tires may be Inflated Quickly by the Use of This Homemade

Pump
The tee is provided with two valves, as shown in the detail
sectional view, Fig. 3, the upper ball valve retaining the pressure in
the pipe line, and the other valve admitting air above the piston. The
ball valve has a seat of lead, and a ribbed fitting is fixed to the pipe
cap above it, to provide a fastening for the hose. The cap of the
other valve is fitted with a spring, adjustable on a threaded pin.
A light spring fixed to the upper side of the piston, as shown in Fig.
2, forces the piston back to its lower position after the force of the
explosion in the cylinder has acted upon it. The cylinder of the pump
should be oiled, and a reinforced rubber hose should be used to
conduct the air under pressure to the tire.
The operation is simple: The initial stroke of the engine cylinder
draws the piston down, bringing in a charge of air from the valve
ports at the side of the tee; the following compression and explosion
strokes drive it back, forcing the air out of the ball valve, as the other
valve closes on the upstroke of the piston. A large tire may be
pumped up with this device in from five to ten minutes.
Aid in Ruling Uniform Cards or Sheets
When a number of cards or sheets are to be ruled with either
horizontal or vertical divisions, the following method will be found a
timesaver: Rule one of the cards as a sample. Place it on the
drawing board with its lower edge set against two thumb tacks driven
part way in. Rule extensions of the lines on the card to a sheet of
paper fastened to the board under the card. Set a third thumb tack at
the right edge of the card as a guide. By placing the cards to be
ruled against the three thumb tacks in the position of the original
card, the rulings may be made quickly with the marks on the paper
backing as guides.—W. P. Shaw, Stratford, Can.
Tinned Staples for Bell-Circuit Wiring
The Strip is Cut into Squares Which are Folded and Driven into the Support,
Binding the Wire
Inexpensive and practical staples for binding wires used in bell

circuits, or for similar purposes, may be made from a strip of tinned
sheet metal, about ¹⁄₂ in. wide. The strip is cut on the sides, as
indicated in the sketch, and the squares are broken off as needed.
They may be bent quickly to the shape shown, and are used by
placing them over the wire and driving the points into the wall or
other support. If properly made, they will not injure the covering of
the wire and are more satisfactory than wire staples.

Individual Differences in Language Learning A Complex Systems Theory Perspective 1St Ed Edition Carol Griffiths Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Individual Differences in Language Learning A Complex Systems Theory Perspective 1St Ed Edition Carol Griffiths Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Individual Differences in Language

Learning: A Complex Systems Theory

ISBN 978-3-030-52899-7 ISBN 978-3-030-52900-0 (eBook)

Cover illustration: Moobin / shutterstock.com

Aims of the Book

The book aims to be.

Organization of the Book

• The book provides multiple thought-provoking insights which teachers might be

Girne/Kyrenia, North Cyprus Carol Griffiths

1 Individual Differences: An Overview ������������������������������������������������������ 1

Table 9.1 Autonomy statements with median ratings (MED) plus

To Get You Thinking Before You Read

1. How many individual differences can you think of?

© The Author(s) 2020 1

since, as Horwitz (1999) reminds us “language learners are individuals approaching

Why Are Individual Differences (IDs) Important?

What Should Be Included as an Individual Difference?

characteristics which make learners different from each other

• intelligence and working memory (which will be included under aptitude)

Rationales for each of these will be included in the relevant chapters.

It is generally Diane Larsen-Freeman who is credited with applying Complexity

It is also essential to remember that this complex/dynamic individual with multiple

Although Complex/dynamic Systems Theory makes intuitive sense, it can create a

Individual Variable Overview

Beliefs: Beliefs might be defined as something which an individual holds to be

To Get You Thinking Before You Read

1. Language learning is often considered according to learners’ ages: young

© The Author(s) 2020 11

Of course, the question of “How young is ‘young’?” is by no means an entirely easy

• Oyama (1976) investigated 60 Italian-born immigrants to the USA and con-

• Llanes (2010) administered a questionnaire to measure the participants’ progress

• A well-known case study describes a 10-month study of Alberto, a 33-year-old

Nevertheless, in spite of these well-known studies which present a negative view

• Neufeld’s (1978) study of adult native speakers of English in Canada seemed to

• A number of adult Dutch learners of English in a study by Bongaerts, van

Explaining Age-related Differences in Language Learning

Possible explanations for age-related differences in language development are var-

Social and Ecological Context

A Small-scale Case Study of a Successful Adult Language Learner

Olga (aged 34 at the time of the study)

• Her socio-ecological situation. Interestingly, she describes herself as learning

Implications for Language Learning and Teaching

Questions for Ongoing Research

1. What age range do you think should be included in “young learner”?

► Follow-up Task Conduct a case study of an individual whose successful or

To Get You Thinking Before You Read

1. What do you see as the difference between sex and gender?

inadvertently stray into politically incorrect territory? As Nyikos (2008, p.74)

Table 3.1 Median levels of Proficiency

Folders Like That in Figure 1 may be Glued to Form Envelopes, Figure 2, or

I have derived considerable satisfaction from the use of a yardstick

The uppers from a pair of worn-out shoes may be made into a

Scenery for an Amateur Theatrical Performance was Made by Painting

Scenery for a home-talent theatrical performance was required,

¶The burner of an acetylene bicycle lamp, fitted to an ordinary gas

Automobile Tires may be Inflated Quickly by the Use of This Homemade

Inexpensive and practical staples for binding wires used in bell

You might also like

Aims of the Book

Organization of the Book

Girne/Kyrenia, North Cyprus Carol Griffiths

1 Individual Differences: An Overview �� 1

To Get You Thinking Before You Read

Why Are Individual Differences (IDs) Important?

What Should Be Included as an Individual Difference?

Individual Variable Overview

To Get You Thinking Before You Read

Explaining Age-related Differences in Language Learning

Social and Ecological Context

Implications for Language Learning and Teaching

Questions for Ongoing Research

To Get You Thinking Before You Read