Second Language Research on Individual Differences

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (1993) 13, 188-205. Printed in the USA.Copyright © 1993 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/93 $5.00 + .00

SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH ON INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Rebecca L. Oxford and Madeline Ehrman

INTRODUCTION

To provide the most effective instruction possible, teachers of a secondlanguage (L2) should learn to identify and comprehend significant individualdifferences in their students. Many excellent teachers have learned to do some ofthis intuitively, but explicit understanding of individual-difference dimensions canenhance the work of all teachers. Among the most important such variations aredifferences associated with nine factors: aptitude, motivation, anxiety, self-esteem, tolerance of ambiguity, risk-taking, language learning styles, age, andgender. All of these variables and many more have been shown to be related toL2 learning in various ways. In fact, Gradman and Hanania (1991) identify 22individual-difference variables that can affect success in learning a new language.

In this article we synthesize research on the nine individual-differencefactors named above and offer instructional implications related to each. Foradditional syntheses and commentaries on individual differences in languagelearning, see Galbraith and Gardner (1988) and Skehan (1989). (See also thearticle on learning strategies in this volume.)

APTITUDE

Individual students differ in their aptitude for learning languages, as anyL2 teacher can testify. But just what does L2 aptitude mean, and what doesresearch say about it? One of the most current and most valuable references inthis area is Skehan (1989), who provides a historical critique of L2 aptitude.Skehan notes that the development of L2 aptitude batteries started with grammar-focused tests in the early part of this century. According to Skehan, the prevalentcurrent view of L2 aptitude is reflected in Carroll and Sapon's Modern LanguageAptitude Test or MLAT, which is now more than a third of a century old. The

188

SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH ON INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 189

MLAT, designed for ages 14 and above, was based on factor analyses of initialtest items rather than from a broad theoretical framework of aptitude. The resultwas a test reflecting the following four component skills:

1. phonemic coding ability (sound-symbol association),2. grammatical sensitivity (recognizing grammatical functions in context),3. inductive language learning ability (identifying patterns of correspondence

by reasoning and inference), and4. rote memorization (associations between stimulus and response).

These four components became the basis for the five subtests of theMLAT:

1. phonetic script (sound-symbol coding),2. spelling clues (sound-symbol coding and English language vocabulary),3. words in sentences (grammatical sensitivity in English and some induc-

tion),4. number learning (rote memorization, aural comprehension, and induction

of grammar systems), and5. paired associates (rote memorization and associative learning).

The MLAT has been shown to have moderate although not high predictive value(.40-.60) in many settings (Ehrman forthcoming). Better predictive power (.70s)has been found for heterogeneous students in intensive courses.

Although the MLAT has dominated the L2 aptitude scene for more thanthree decades, many criticisms of this test have surfaced recently, only some ofwhich Skehan (1989) noted. First, the MLAT, though discriminating well atlower levels of aptitude, fails to discriminate well at all levels. In someinstances, for example at the U.S. Foreign Service Institute, the MLATeffectively identifies the worst and the best candidates but differentiates poorly forthe middle two-thirds. Second, the MLAT is highly analytic and thus applicableespecially to classroom activities, but it might not measure equally well the globallanguage learning abilities that are necessary for natural, spontaneouscommunication, especially outside the classroom. These abilities include gettingthe main idea in a conversation, continuing an interaction through gestures whenthe right word is unknown, gaining empathy with people in the target culture, andguessing from social or cultural clues. Third, the MLAT does not take intoaccount the notion that many different kinds of learners might have a strongaptitude for L2 learning, but that they might approach L2 learning by distinctlydifferent, though equally successful, routes. Finally, because of its heavyreliance on sophisticated knowledge of English, the MLAT may not be valid fornon-native speakers of English. At best, the MLAT and related tests account foronly one half, or a little more, of the variation in language learning success;many other factors play a role, as noted later in this paper.

190 REBECCA L. OXFORD AND MADELINE EHRMAN

There are at least two other language aptitude measures which areavailable for use. For ages 13 through 19, the Pimsleur Language AptitudeBattery can be used. It focuses on inductive L2 learning ability and auditory skillwithout the grammatical sensitivity and rote memorization found in the MLAT;thus, its scope is even more restricted than that of the MLAT. The DefenseLanguage Aptitude Battery or DLAB has predictive power similar to that of theMLAT. The Defense Language Institute, not fully satisfied with the DLAB, iscurrently developing a new aptitude battery to address more of the individualdifferences of learners.

All of the above aptitude measures, as currently used, are narrow in theirassumptions about language learning capabilities. According to a series of Britishinvestigations reported by Skehan (1989), a broader interpretation is possible.This research assumes two main influences on L2 aptitude: 1) socioeconomic andparental education factors and 2) general syntax-processing capacity. Thus, L2aptitude includes not just what is "inborn" in the child but also what the societyhelps create through social-class and family influences. Skehan also notes otherstudies in which first language development and L2 aptitude were strongly linked.

In reaction to the strong influence of the MLAT, Parry and Stansfield(1990) have called for a major reconceptualization of L2 aptitude. They point outthat, at least in the U.S., L2 aptitude testing is hardly ever used in school oruniversity programs, even though it is widely used by government agencies forselection purposes. L2 aptitude measures might be useful to many more kinds ofinstitutions if the following suggestions in the Parry and Stansfield volume wereinitiated:

1. Expand the concept of L2 aptitude to include a variety of new predictors,such as general ability measures, learning styles, learning strategies, andattitudinal and motivational characteristics.

2. Use L2 aptitude measurement for many new purposes beyond mereselection, such as diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses, remediation ofspecific difficulties, and placement of students with different learningstyles into classes taught by appropriate methodologies.

While the development of more appropriate measures of language aptitude will bea challenging undertaking, the potential uses of such measures could be greatlyexpanded. More appropriate aptitude measures would also be a vital tool forfurther studies of individual differences among language learners.

MOTIVATION

Motivation determines the extent of active, personal engagement inlearning. The definition of motivation which is adopted here (based on Crookesand Schmidt 1989) is composed of four internal attitudinal factors and three


external behavioral characteristics. The internal factors include interest, rele-vance, expectancy, and outcomes. Interest in the subject or process depends onthe learner's existing attitudes, experiences, and background knowledge. Rele-vance involves the perception that personal needs such as achievement, power,and affiliation with other people are being met. Expectancy relates to the beliefthat the learner's involvement will be either a success or a failure. Outcomesrefer the intrinsic or extrinsic rewards felt by the learner while learning. Theexternal or behavioral features of motivation include decision-making, persis-tence, and activity level. The learner decides to choose, to pay attention to, andto engage in one activity but not others; the learner persists over an extendedtime and returns to the activity after interruptions; and the learner maintains ahigh activity level.

Clearly, attitudes and beliefs directly affect behaviors within this motiva-tional framework. An L2 teacher who overcorrects the student can lower theexpectation of success and destroy the reward, thus reducing the student'swillingness to pay attention or persist in learning the L2. If language activitiesare perceived as irrelevant or uninteresting, or if they conflict with the learner'sparticular style, the learner might tune out or lower the level of involvement. Ifthe student has a negative attitude toward the target culture or toward the value oflearning the L2, his or her L2 learning motivation is likely to be lowered, andany behavior toward the goal will diminish.

High motivation spurs learners to interact with native speakers of thelanguage, which in turn increases the amount of input that learners receive(Krashen 1982, Scarcella and Oxford 1992). Motivation often leads learners touse a variety of learning strategies that can develop greater skill in languagelearning (Oxford and Nyikos 1989). Motivation encourages greater overall efforton the part of language learners and typically results in greater success in termsof language proficiency and achievement (Clement, Major, Gardner and Smythe1977, Gardner 1985, Samimy and Tabuse 1991). There is now a considerableamount of research which shows that students who are more motivated developstronger overall L2 proficiency. At the same time, however, Youseff (1984)found that the relationship between motivation and achievement was not identicalfor all languages; in that sample, it was far stronger for learners of German andFrench than for learners of Spanish.

In many studies, though not all, motivation has also been shown to relateto increased competence in specific language skills such as listening, reading, andspeaking (Genesee 1978, Genesee and Hamayan 1980, Tucker, Hamayan andGenesee 1976). Furthermore, strong motivation has helped learners maintaintheir language skills after classroom instruction is over (Gardner, Lalonde,Moorcroft and Evers 1985).


A common distinction in general discussions of motivation is that betweenextrinsic motivation (external reward, compulsion, outside relationships, and thelike) and intrinsic motivation (personal satisfaction and psychic reward). Thisdistinction has not been a central theme in language learning motivation studies,although a current Foreign Service Institute study is using this distinction(Ehrman forthcoming). Many major language researchers have chosen a social-psychological orientation toward language learning motivation. Gardner, a leadingsocial-psychological theorist (Gardner 1985, Gardner, Lalonde, Moorcroft andEvers 1985, Gardner and Lambert 1959; 1972), has championed integrativemotivation—the desire to learn a language to integrate oneself with the targetculture—as preferable to instrumental motivation—the desire to learn the languagein order to get a better job or meet a requirement. According to this theory, thestudent will learn the language more effectively if the goal is to become close tonative L2 speakers than if the goal is simply to get a better job based on L2skills.

A number of researchers including Au (1988), Crookes and Schmidt(1989), Dornyei (1990), Horwitz (1990), Oiler (1981), and Oxford (1992)disagree with the primacy of integrative motivation in L2 learning. Theseresearchers contend that one particular kind of motivation might not be uniformlysuperior in terms of ultimate L2 performance. Initial results from the ongoingForeign Service Institute study (Ehrman forthcoming) suggest that instrumentalmotivation plays a substantially greater role than integrative motivation in end-of-course ratings for some language skills. (In the same study, self-reportedintrinsic motivation is more important than extrinsic motivation in ratings oflanguage performance.) Horwitz (1990) points to research showing thatinstrumental motivation was more predictive than integrative motivation for L2success in the Philippines while integrative motivation was a stronger influencethan instrumental motivation in English-speaking Canadian populations. Dornyei(1990) shows that instrumental and integrative motivations were less influential onL2 achievement than was another aspect of motivation, the general "need forachievement." Oxford (1992) has found that students' motivations for takingJapanese went well beyond integrative and instrumental motivations andencompassed altruistic reasons, intellectual desires, general communication needs,and other motivations. Integrative motivation was by no means the strongest ormost prevalent motivation, though it was indeed important.

In short, the field of L2 motivation has been the focus of a significantamount of research; needless to say, much more is needed. The results describedhere suggest that motivation is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that isintegral to L2 success. Future research should provide additional insights into therole of motivation in language learning.


ANXIETY

Anxiety is a state of apprehension and a vague, sometimes undefined,fear (Scovel 1978). Anxiety in the L2 classroom can negatively influenceattitudes, motivation, and performance. It sometimes arises in response to aparticular situation or event (situational or state anxiety), but occasionally it is apermanent character trait, as in a person who is predisposed to be fearful of manythings (trait anxiety). The kind of anxiety seen in the L2 classroom is usuallysituational or state anxiety rather than trait anxiety. A recent book by Horwitzand Young (1990) is devoted specifically to situational anxiety in the L2 class-room.

Some L2 experts believe that anxiety can be helpful rather than harmful.The "good" kind of anxiety, called facilitating anxiety, can be useful in keepingstudents alert (Brown 1987, Scovel 1978). The "bad" kind of anxiety is knownas debilitating anxiety because it harms L2 learners' performance in many ways,both indirectly through worry and self-doubt, and directly by reducing participa-tion and creating overt avoidance of the language. Horwitz (1990), however, hasargued that facilitating anxiety may be helpful for very simple learning tasks butnot with more complicated processes such as L2 learning; thus, the concept offacilitating anxiety might not actually be relevant to L2 learners. On the otherhand, initial results in the Foreign Service Institute study (Erhman forthcoming)suggest evidence to the contrary.

Many kinds of L2 activities can generate performance anxiety, dependingon the student. Speaking in front of others is often the most anxiety-provokingsituation of all (Horwitz and Young 1990). Those students prone to anxiety whenspeaking might include introverts or visual learners who learn better with visualreferents, who do not enjoy interacting with others, or who dislike performing infront of others. Yet speaking is not the only skill that triggers anxiety. For someL2 students, writing or listening can also create fear, depending on the students'learning style preferences and skill levels. Even reading, which has theadvantage of a permanent, written stimulus to which students can return repeat-edly, can be anxiety-provoking; this is especially true for individuals who havedifficulty reading efficiently in their native language due to a learning disability orlack of appropriate reading strategies. Another potential source of anxiety isclassroom structure; some students may perceive it as too fluid and unstructured,or as too closed and structured (Littlewood 1981). The current Foreign ServiceInstitute study finds clearly differentiated facilitating and debilitating anxietydimensions measured by several different instruments and correlated in differentways with language performance ratings (Ehrman forthcoming).

Anxiety can also come from a fear of, or from the actual experience of,"losing oneself in the target culture through culture shock (Adler 1987). L2learners who are living in the target culture frequently experience culture shock,


at least initially. Culture shock involves some or all of these symptoms: emo-tional regression, panic, anger, self-pity, indecision, sadness, alienation, "reducedpersonality," and physical illness.

Teachers can diagnose anxiety through a number of instruments, the bestknown of which is the "Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale" by Horwitz(1990); in addition, anxiety is often readily observable. However, behaviorsvary across cultures, and what might seem like anxious behavior in one culturemight be calm, normal behavior in another culture.

Based on research, Lavine and Oxford (1990) describe possible symptomsof anxiety: general avoidance or forgetting; physical actions such as squirming,tapping, or stammering; physical symptoms like headaches, pain, or tension; andimage protection behaviors such as exaggerated laughing, nodding, or joking.Ehrman (1990) addresses anxiety factors most related to interpersonal interactionsand explores how they lead to different sorts of performance anxiety.

SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem is a self-judgment of worth or value based on feelings of"efficacy," a sense of interacting effectively with one's own environment (White1959). Efficacy implies that some degree of control exists within oneself. If aperson's "locus of control"—the place one attributes control of one's life—istotally external as opposed to at least partially internal (Rotter 1966), then self-esteem often becomes a problem.

Like anxiety, self-esteem can be a trait (an inherent personality character-istic) or a state (related to a particular situation). Global self-esteem, as a traitcharacteristic, arises when the person is at a mental age of eight. It is based ontwo factors:

1. self-perceptions of competence in various broad areas, such as academics,athletics, social interaction, physical appearance, and conduct.

2. a personal assessment of the importance of each of these areas.

Global self-esteem can suffer if the student does not do well in an area that he orshe considers very significant. Performance often improves when the learnermakes a globally positive self-assessment, though this assessment might beinaccurate.

Situational self-esteem is a much more specific state of efficacy relatingto a specific situation, event, or activity type. A person can feel good abouthimself or herself globally yet at the same time experience low self-esteem in aparticular situation or environment (Scarcella and Oxford 1992). Notsurprisingly, unsuccessful L2 learners—those who have particular problems in the


learning situation—have lower self-esteem than successful L2 learners. Whetherthis non-success affects their overall self-esteem or only their situational self-esteem partly depends on how important language learmng is to the individualsinvolved. Initial results of a subsample of the current Foreign Service Institutestudy suggest that positive beliefs about oneself and one's learning ability made adefinite contribution to learning success as measured by proficiency ratings(Ehrman forthcoming).

TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY AND RISK-TAKING

Tolerance of ambiguity is the acceptance of confusing situations. Asnoted by Ely (1989), L2 learning is fraught with uncertainty about meanings,referents, and pronunciation, so a degree of ambiguity tolerance is essential forlanguage learners. Students who are able to tolerate moderate levels of confusionare likely to persist longer in L2 learning than students who are overly frightenedby the ambiguities inherent in learning a new language (Chapelle 1983, Naiman,Frohlich, Stern and Todesco 1978). Too much tolerance of ambiguity, however,might lead to unquestioning acceptance and cognitive passivity.

Tolerance of ambiguity may be closely related to certain elements oflearning style, such as openness to experience, rapidity of closure, and globalapproach. For instance, students who do not need immediate "closure" (i.e., whocan deal with some degree of ambiguity) often appear to use more communi-catively-oriented L2 learning strategies than students who require rapid closure(Ehrman and Oxford 1989; 1990). Likewise, Ely (1989) has discovered that thedegree of ambiguity tolerance significantly predicts students' choice of many(although not all) learning strategies. The ongoing Foreign Service Institute studyhas found low but significant correlations between tolerance for ambiguity andlanguage performance (Ehrman forthcoming).

Students who fear the frequent ambiguities of L2 learning often sufferreduced risk-taking ability. Research suggests that it is more useful for languagelearners to take moderate but intelligent risks—guessing meanings based onbackground knowledge and speaking up despite the possibility of making occa-sional mistakes—rather than taking no risks at all or taking extreme, uninformedrisks (Brown 1987, Oxford 1990). L2 students who fear ambiguity or who havelow self-esteem often allow their inhibitions to take over (Beebe 1983, Stevick1976). In addition, decreases in risk-taking frequently occur when students feelextreme discomfort in the language classroom (Ely 1986a).


LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLES

Learning styles are the general approaches students use to learn anysubject, including a second language (Oxford, Ehrman and Lavine 1991). Otherdefinitions also stress the distinctiveness of various styles as well as their consis-tent manifestations:

Learning style consists of distinctive behaviors which serve as indicatorsof how a person learns from and interacts with his [or her] environment(Gregorc 1979:234).

Essentially, learning style can be defined as a consistent pattern ofbehavior but with a certain range of individual variability... Styles thenare overall patterns that give general direction to learning behavior(Cornett 1983:9).

Four major dimensions or aspects of learning style appear to be the most impor-tant for L2 learning: the analytic-global parameter, sensory preferences, intu-itive/random vs. sensory/sequential learning, and relative orientation towardclosure or openness (Ehrman 1989, Ehrman and Oxford 1990, Oxford 1991).

One very important dimension of language learning styles is the analyticvs. global parameter, often referred to as field independence and field depen-dence. Analytic students tend to concentrate on grammatical details and oftenavoid more free-flowing communicative activities. They like contrastive analysis,rule-learning, and dissecting words and sentences. Because of their desire forprecision, analytic learners do not like to guess without adequate time to reflect;nor do they like to use compensation strategies like paraphrasing when they donot know a particular word. Their accuracy needs may preclude their obtainingsufficient conversational practice. In contrast, global students use sociallyinteractive, communicative strategies which emphasize the main idea over details.They dislike grammatical details, avoid careful analysis, and prefer compensationstrategies like guessing, paraphrasing, or using synonyms. On the other hand,their lack of concern with accuracy sometimes causes global students to "fossil-ize" early. Field independence (analytic tendency) has been significantly andpositively related to L2 achievement in some studies (Carter 1988, Chapelle andRoberts 1984, d'Anglejan and Renaud 1985). Unfortunately, the potentialadvantages of field dependence (the global tendency) in terms of cultural empa-thy, informal conversational ability in natural settings, and sociolinguistic skillshave not yet been systematically examined by L2 researchers.

Another significant style difference highlights sensory preferences:visual, auditory, and hands-on (a combination of kinesthetic/movement-orientedand tactile/touch-oriented preferences). Sensory preference refers to the physical,perceptual learning channels with which the student is the most comfortable.


Visual students like to read and obtain other kinds of visual stimulation throughmovies, posters, and bulletin boards. For them, lectures, conversations, and oraldirections without any visual backup can be very confusing and anxiety-producing. Auditory students, on the other hand, are comfortable without muchvisual input and therefore enjoy lectures, conversations, and oral directions.They are excited by classroom interactions such as role-plays and similaractivities but sometimes have difficulty with written work. Hands-on studentslike a lot of movement and enjoy working with tangible objects, collages, andflashcards. Sitting at a desk for very long is not comfortable for them; theyprefer to have frequent breaks and move around the room. Reid (1987)demonstrated that ESL students vary significantly in their sensorypreferences—people from different cultures differentially favored each of the threemodalities for learning. She found that students from Asian cultures, forexample, are often highly visual while Hispanics are frequently auditory. Griffin(1987) examined L2 literacy achievement in relation to whether there was a matchbetween instructional media and learners' preferred sensory modality. Asignificant difference was found in that subjects who selected their favoriteinstructional media (based on their preferred sensory modality) performed betterthan those who were not allowed a choice of media.

A third key aspect of learning style consists of intuitive/random learningvs. sensing/sequential learning. Intuitive/random students think in abstract, large-scaled, nonsequential ways. They are frequently able to distill the main principlesof how the second language works and thusly conceive the underlying languagesystem. They are also often bored by concrete, step-by-step learning and wouldrather take daring intellectual leaps. Sensing/sequential students use strategiesthat focus on concrete facts in a step-by-step, organized fashion. Abstractprinciples and underlying language systems are less important to sensing/sequential learners who prefer to do the task at hand and then move on to thenext activity. These learners are frequently slow and steady, progressing at theirown rate, but still able to achieve learning goals, especially if those goals aremade very clear. Randomness and a lack of consistency in lesson plans areproblematic for such students. Ehrman and Oxford (1989; 1990), in a studyinvolving the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) as a measure of learning styleand psychological type, found that intuitive (abstract and random) L2 learnerschose learning strategies that are more representative of communicative learningthan did sensing/sequential students. The current Foreign Service Institute studyhas evaluated the intuitive learning preference (using the MBTI and other mea-sures) against language performance and has found such an intuitive style to besomewhat advantageous, although many sensing/sequential students also do well(Ehrman forthcoming).

A final important learning style dimension is orientation to closure, thedegree to which the person needs to reach decisions or clarity. This dimension isvery closely related to tolerance of ambiguity and to general flexibility. Students


oriented toward closure are hard-working, organized and planful, and have astrong need for clarity. They want lesson directions and grammar rules to beclearly spelled out. Such students avoid spontaneous conversations and games inthe L2 classroom—unless, of course, they have had adequate time to use metacog-nitive strategies such as preparing their vocabulary lists and reviewing the rulesinvolved in any given interaction. Students less oriented to closure are sometimesknown as "open learners." They take L2 learning less seriously, treating it like agame to be enjoyed rather than a set of tasks to be completed and judged, andthey avoid too much planning and preparation. Because of their relaxed attitude,open learners (MBTI "perceivers") have been shown to be less dependent on thecurriculum and the quality of the syllabus than more closure-oriented learners(Ehrman 1989; 1990, Ehrman and Oxford 1989). Keeping open to new informa-tion without forcing premature closure appears to be part of a continuous questfor meaning. Openness can be a benefit in some situations, particularly those thatrequire flexibility and the development of fluency, but it can be a detriment inother situations, such as in highly structured and traditional classroom settings.

Language learners need to make the most of their style preferences byusing familiar strategies related to their styles. However, learners must alsoextend themselves beyond their "stylistic comfort zone" to use learning strategiesthat might not initially feel right. For instance, an analytic learner cannot remainlimited to memorizing and analyzing vocabulary but must push for a more globalunderstanding of meaning. A global student, conversely, needs to practiceanalytic skills in order to understand the structure of the language and learn howto communicate with precision and skill.

AGE AND GENDER

Age is often mentioned as an influence on language learning success(Scarcella and Oxford 1992). Based on Genesee (1978), Oxford (1982) reviewedthe two main arguments in favor of learning foreign or second languages atyounger ages. The first is the cognitive-nativist argument that language learningis an innate ability, one that dissipates with age (Chomsky 1972). The second isthe neurological argument that one's neural plasticity decreases with age, thusaffecting language learning ability (Lenneberg 1967).

There are also several opposing arguments. Many of these focus on thefact that, in some instances, older learners attain higher levels of foreign orsecond language acquisition than their younger counterparts (Burstall 1974, Ervin-Tripp 1974, Fathman 1975). Advantages for different ages have been variouslyattributed to one or more of the following: 1) prior experience in languagelearning, 2) onset of formal operations (i.e., abstract thinking abilities), 3)cognitive maturity, 4) kind of input, 5) affective factors, 6) sociocultural factors,and 7) one or more sensitive or critical periods (Oxford 1982). By far the most


detailed discussion of all of these age factors in L2 learning, although not theeasiest to read, is offered by Singleton (1989).

Tying together many strands of L2 age research, Scarcella and Oxford(1992) argue that older learners have an advantage in terms of rate of acquisitionof syntax and morphology; however ultimate fluency and native-like pronuncia-tion in a new language are acquired better among those who start learning it aschildren. Adults proceed more rapidly through the initial stages of syntactic andmorphological development than children but not at the later stages, and theyoften experience fossilization—the permanent cessation of second or foreignlanguage development (Selinker 1972). The initial findings from the ongoingForeign Service Institute research, for a population ranging from mid-twenties tomid-fifties, indicate a slight advantage for younger learners in intensive training(Ehrman forthcoming).

Gender has received scant attention in research on the development of L2skills. This is surprising when one considers all the research on genderdifferences in other educational areas, including native language development anduse (Bardwick 1971, Maccoby and Jacklin 1974, Tannen 1990). The rareresearch on L2 gender differences has concentrated on how people use strategiesto learn these languages, that is, on the choice of strategies females and malesemploy for language learning.

Politzer (1983) reported that, in L2 learning, females used social strate-gies significantly more often than males—a difference which was dismissedwithout any explanation but which might be associated with women's strongersocial orientation. Oxford, Nyikos and Ehrman (1988) summarized Politzer'sstudy and several others touching on gender differences in L2 learning. Theyconcluded that, in typical L2 learning situations, women used significantly morelearning strategies than men and use them more often; but after strategy training,men and women showed roughly equivalent, though different, strategy strengths.

INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS

The research findings above suggest important instructional implications(see also Oxford, et al. 1991). First, teachers, administrators, and researchersshould be cautious about using the existing aptitude measures until a broaderreconceptualization of L2 aptitude has occurred. The MLAT and other existingmeasures do not appear to be adequate for prediction of performance in a fullrange of instructional settings and for multiple instructional purposes (e.g.,selection, diagnosis, placement, and remediation). Current studies may helprefine conceptions of aptitude and ways of measuring it, possibly throughcomposite prediction formulas.


Second, teachers must do everything they can to heighten L2 learningmotivation by ensuring that the material and the tasks are communicative,nonthreatening, exciting, relevant, appropriately challenging, capable of stimu-lating successful performance, and presented according to students' favoredlearning styles whenever possible (Ely 1986b, Oxford 1990). Moreover, teachersneed to help reverse any negative attitudes (e.g., stereotypes) that might harmstudent motivation. Ralph (1989) offers a number of helpful suggestions forenhancing language learners' motivation.

Third, by becoming aware of potential signs of anxiety, L2 teachers cantake steps toward improving the classroom climate. (But certain behaviors thatflag anxiety in one culture might simply be normal behavior in other cultures.)After diagnosing anxious behavior, L2 teachers must act to reduce anxiety.Depending on students' needs and cultural background, this action can include thefollowing: 1) avoidance of overcorrection, sarcasm, and intimidation; 2) fairtesting and rewards; 3) recognition of students' learning styles; 4) establishmentof student support groups; S) use of dialogue journals, diaries, emotionalchecklists, and anxiety graphs to track feelings; 6) behavioral contracting,including setting realistic goals; 7) cooperative learning; 8) relaxation techniquessuch as music, deep breathing, and humor; and 9) students' development ofpositive self-talk (self-encouragement) as well as cognitive "refraining" ofnegative or irrational ideas (see Horwitz 1990, Lavine and Oxford 1990).Personality type can serve as an additional guide for teachers as they chooseapproaches to minimize anxiety (Ehrman 1990).

Fourth, teachers must assist students in developing their self-esteem,particularly in the language learning situation. Helping students assess theirprogress realistically and positively is very important to self-esteem (Moskowitz1972). Teachers can also aid students in discounting, when feasible, the per-ceived importance of those areas in which they do not perform well (Harter1986).

Fifth, tolerance of ambiguity and risk-taking ability, though sometimesconsidered inherent character traits, can be developed through class discussion offears, individual counseling with inhibited students, a nonthreatening classroomclimate, and training in strategies that facilitate taking risks (e.g., compensationstrategies like guessing or using synonyms). L2 teachers must help learners relaxand not be worried if they do not understand everything right away. At the sametime, they must assist learners in knowing when and how to take risks, particu-larly in conversational settings.

Sixth, L2 teachers must assess their own learning and teaching styles andbecome aware of the styles of their students (most easily done through styleinventories). They must provide varied, multisensory lessons that appeal to manydifferent learning styles. They need to spot style conflicts and help learners


stretch beyond their "stylistic comfort zone" to develop new language learningstrategies.

Seventh, age and gender differences in language learning performancecan be expected, and students should be made aware of these differences as theyplan their L2 learning goals. However, such differences should not be an excusefor artificially limiting the challenges presented to students. Instead, like person-ality type considerations, such differences can serve as useful guidelines forcurriculum development. For example, male and female students often preferdifferent content, and adult students need relevant material and topics to do theirbest. Teachers must also pay increased attention to cultural differences in genderroles as related to students' L2 performance.

All of these dimensions should be addressed in teacher training at alllevels. Indeed, one of the main purposes of certain current research studies(especially the ongoing Foreign Service Institute study) is to provide data that willbe used for training teachers, making them more effective with their students.With such training, teachers can assist their students in taking greaterresponsibility for their own learning and selecting confidently among learningoptions.

SUMMARY

This article has examined nine individual-difference variables influencingL2 success: aptitude, motivation, anxiety, self-esteem, tolerance for ambiguity,risk-taking, learning styles, age, and gender. Each of these variables contributesto language learning in a different way. Instructional implications of each havealso been explored. While many of these variables are seen as inherent charactertraits, recognition of their roles in L2 learning can lead teachers to vary instruc-tional approaches in effective ways.

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, R. S. 1987. Culture shock and the cross-cultural learning experience. InL. F. Luce and E. C. Smith (eds). Toward internationalism: Readings incross-cultural communication, 2nd ed. New York: Newbury House.24-35.

Au, S. Y. 1988. A critical appraisal of Gardner's socio-psychological theory ofsecond-language (L2) learning. Language Learning. 38.75-100.

Bard wick, J. 1971. Psychology of women: A study of biocultural conflicts. NewYork: Harper & Row.


Beebe, L. M. 1983. Risk-taking and the language learner. In H. W. Seliger andM. H. Long (eds.) Classroom-oriented research in second languageacquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 39-66.

Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of language learning and teaching, 2nd ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Burstall, C. 1974. Primary French in the balance. Windsor, England: NFER.Carter, E. 1988. The relationship of field dependent/independent cognitive style

to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A preliminary report.Modern Language Journal. 72.21-30.

Chapelle, C. A. 1983. The relationship between ambiguity tolerance and successin acquiring English as a second language in adult learners. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. Ph.D. diss.

and C. Roberts. 1984. Field independence and ambiguitytolerance as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language.Paper presented at the 18th Annual TESOL Convention. Houston, TX,March 1984.

Chomsky, N. 1972. Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Clement, R., L. Major, R. C. Gardner and P. C. Smythe. 1977. Attitudes and

motivation in second language acquisition: An investigation of Ontariofrancophones. Working Papers on Bilingualism. 12.1-20.

Cornett, C. E. 1983. What you should know about teaching and learning styles.Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Crookes, G. and R. Schmidt. 1989. Motivation: Reopening the research agenda.University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL. 8.217-256.

d'Anglejan, A. and C. Renaud. 198S. Learner characteristics and second lan-guage acquisition: A multivariate study of adult immigrants and somethoughts on methodology. Language Learning. 35.1-19.

Dornyei, Z. 1990. Analysis of motivation components in foreign language learn-ing. Paper presented at the Ninth World Congress on Applied Linguistics.Thessoloniki, Greece, April 1990.

Ehrman, M. E. 1989. Ants and grasshoppers, badgers and butterflies: Quantita-tive and qualitative investigation of adult language learning styles andstrategies. Cincinnati, OH: Union Institute. Ph.D. diss.

1990. Owls and doves: Cognition, personality, and languagesuccess. In J. E. Alatis (ed.) Linguistics, language teaching, and theinterdependence of theory, practice, and research. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press. 413-437. [Georgetown University RoundTable on Languages and Linguistics 1990.]

Forthcoming. Interim report on the Language Learning ProfilesProject. Arlington, VA: Foreign Service Institute.

and R. L. Oxford. 1989. Effects of sex differences, careerchoice, and psychological type on adults' language learning strategies.Modern Language Journal. 73.1-13.

1990. Adult language learning styles andstrategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal. 74.311-327.


Ely, C. 1986a. An analysis of discomfort, risktaking, sociability, and motivationin the L2 classroom. Language Learning. 36.1-25.1986b. Language learning motivation: A descriptive and causal analysis.

Modern Language Journal. 70.28-35.1989. Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language learning

strategies. Modern Language Journal. 22.437-445.Ervin-Tripp, S. 1974. Is second language learning like the first? TESOL

Quarterly. 8.111-127.Fathman, A. 1975. The relationship between age and second language production

ability. Language Learning. 25.245-253.Galbraith, V. and R. C. Gardner. 1988. Individual difference correlates of

second-language achievement: An annotated bibliography. London,Ontario: University of Western Ontario.

Gardner, R. C. 1985. Social psychology and second language learning: The roleof attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

, R. H. Lalonde, R. Moorcroft and F. T. Evers. 1985. Secondlanguage attrition: The role of motivation and use. London, Ontario:University of Western Ontario.

and W. E. Lambert. 1959. Motivational variables in secondlanguage acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 13.266-272.

1972. Attitudes and motivation in secondlanguage learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Genesee, F. 1978. Is there an optimal age for starting second language instruc-tion? McGill University, Montreal. Unpublished manuscript.

and E. Hamayan. 1980. Individual differences in second languagelearning. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1.95-110.

Gradman, H. and E. Hanania. 1991. Language learning background factors andESL proficiency. Modern Language Journal. 75.39-51.

Gregorc, A. F. 1979. Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them.Educational Leadership. 36.234-236.

Griffin, S. 1987. How does the match between media and learners' preferredperceptual modes affect literacy learning? Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology. Atlanta, GA, 1987.

Harter, S. 1986. Feeling good about yourself isn't enough. Today. 8.2.2-3.Horwitz, E. 1990. Attending to the affective domain in the foreign language

classroom. In S. S. Magnan (ed.) Shifting the instructional focus to thelearner. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching ofForeign Languages. 15-33.

and D. J. Young. 1990. Language anxiety: From theory and re-search to classroom practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:Pergamon.

, M. Long and R. Scarcella (eds.) 1981. Child-adult differences insecond language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.


Lavine, R. Z. and R. L. Oxford. 1990. Addressing affective issues in the secondand foreign language classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Modern Language Association. Chicago, IL, December 1990.

Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley.Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative language teaching: An introduction.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Maccoby, E. E. and C. N. Jacklin. 1974. The psychology of sex differences.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.McCombs, B. L. 1987. The role of affective variables in autonomous learning.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association. Washington, DC, April 1987.

Moskowitz, G. 1972. Caring and sharing in the foreign language classroom.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H. H. Stern and A. Todesco. 1978. The goodlanguage learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.[Research in Education Series, 7.]

Oiler, J. W. 1981. Research on the measurement of affective variables: Someremaining questions. In R. W. Anderson (ed.) New dimensions in secondlanguage acquisition research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 114-127.

Oxford, R. 1982. Research on language loss: A review with implications forforeign language teaching. Modern Language Journal. 66.160-169.

1990. Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategiesin the context of styles. In S. S. Magnan (ed.) Shifting the instructionalfocus to the learner. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on theTeaching of Foreign Languages. 35-55.

1991. Language learning styles. SCOLT Newsletter. Spring, 2-3.1992. U.S.-Japanese educational systems: Implications for global

business—A view from this side of the ocean. Paper presented at theannual Alabama Sakura Festival, University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa,AL, March 1992.

and D. Crookall. 1989. Language learning strategies: Methods,findings, and instructional implications. Modern Language Journal.73.404-419.

, M. Ehrman and R. Z. Lavine. 1991. Style wars: Teacher-studentstyle conflicts in the language classroom. In S. S. Magnan (ed.)Challenges in the 1990s for college foreign language programs. Boston,MA: Heinle and Heinle. 1-25.

and M. Nyikos. 1989. Variables affecting choice of languagelearning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal.73.291-300.

and M. Ehrman. 1988. Vive la difference?Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies.Foreign Language Annals. 21.321-329.

Parry, T. S. and C. W. Stansfield. 1990. Language aptitude reconsidered.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


Politzer, R. L. 1983. An exploratory study of self-reported language learningbehaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition. 6.S4-68.

Ralph, E. G. 1989. Research on effective teaching: How can it help L2 teachersmotivate the unmotivated learner? Canadian Modern Language Review.46.135-146.

Reid, J. M. 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOLQuarterly. 21.87-111.

Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control ofreinforcement. Psychological Monograph. 80. [Whole No. 609.]

Samimy, K. and M. Tabuse. 1991. Situation-specific affective variables in asecond language classroom: Analysis and intervention. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Chicago, IL, April 1991.

Scarcella, R. and R. Oxford. 1992. The tapestry of language learning: Theindividual in the communicative classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle andHeinle.

Scovel, T. 1978. The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review ofthe anxiety research. Language Learning. 28.129-142.

Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics.10.209-230.

Singleton, D. 1989. Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon, Avon:Multilingual Matters.

Skehan, P. 1989. Individual differences in second-language learning. London:Edward Arnold.

Stevick, E. W. 1976. Memory, meaning, and method: Some psychological per-spectives on language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Tannen, D. 1990. You just don't understand: Men and women in conversation.New York: Ballentine.

Tucker, G. R., E. Hamayan and F. H. Genesee. 1976. Affective, cognitive, andsocial factors in second language acquisition. Canadian ModernLanguage Review. 32.214-226.

White, R. H. 1959. Motivation reconsidered. Psychology Review. 66.297-333.Youseff, A. 1984. Study time, motivation, and students' achievement. Paper

presented at the 18th Annual TESOL Convention. Houston, TX, March1984.

Documents

Second Language Research on Individual Differences