Individual Differences in Foreign Language Learning

Many factors influence linguistic competency in second language learning. Motivation is one of the natural and social factors that influence second language learning. Because of its great predictive value for language aptitude, motivation enables some learners to achieve near-native status in language competence while others fall far short. Even in a homogeneous learning environment like a classroom, these disparities are unavoidable. Learning a second language necessitates the individual encoding the declarative and procedural memories involved in total knowledge acquisition.  As a result, the motivation to learn facilitates the encoding and subsequent use of these memories to enhance language aptitude (Rubenfeld, Sinclair, & Clement, 2007; Taguchi, 2006). These attributes are variable, and their occurrences suggest personal differences in foreign language acquisition. Therefore, motivation is a strong predictor for individual differences in second language learning.

Learning a Foreign Language

This process of language acquisition occurs at an oddly later stage in life, perhaps adolescence or adulthood, although children are not exempt in this type of learning. Because of the advanced age of its acquisition, the linguistic apparatus, reminiscent of developing children is lacking, a feature that makes the foreign language inherently challenging. This principle underlines the use of formal settings such as classrooms for teaching learners the various linguistic constructs of the foreign language. Despite the advanced age of the students, the linguistic aptitude follows patterned trajectories to the native language acquisition. For that matter, the student undergoes similar stages of acquiring the foreign language like they did while learning their mother tongues, except that this process is more involving because language acquisition is more active than the corresponding mother tongue. The person needs the motivation to endure the learning process, and drive is an exacerbating factor for the individual differences (Rubenfeld et al., 2007).

In L2 learning, two type of memories are involved: declarative and procedural. People willfully acquire a foreign language, and this aspect makes it declarative knowledge. However, the students also encounter contexts that are identical or similar to their original learning situations (through tests and examinations), and the memory from this experience is procedural because it is stored for a relatively longer time frame (Faruji, 2012). Nonetheless, the declarative memory is the commonly utilized because it entails the storage and retrieval of facts (semantic knowledge) and events (episodic knowledge). As a result, the interaction and interrelationship between these two memories facilitate foreign language acquisition. The problem with procedural memory for the second language (L2) learners is that such learners have fewer implicit memories to retrieve regarding the foreign language and have to depend mostly on declarative memory to aid their linguistic competencies (Faruji, 2012). Additionally, procedural knowledge decreases with age because its storage is affected by neuronal destructions and aged persons; hence, the availability of such memories decreases with age. Besides, some learners may have problems acquiring foreign languages requiring tip of the tongue pronunciations.

Hypothetical Case Studies

Marco is an L2 student in a school in Denton County, Oklahoma. He is Mexican and is a native Spanish speaker. He is currently in fifth grade and anticipates to become a doctor when he finishes his high school to join college. As a second language learner, he adequately consults his teacher on ways to improve his linguistic competencies. The teacher is impressed and gives him extra homework on reading and comprehension. The consultation has been going on for about six months, and to the teacher’s surprise, Marco’s reading and comprehension scores for the previous term were almost similar to those of the L1 students. He is also reading and participates in his local church drama. In contrast to Marco, Varun is a college freshman at the California State University, pursuing a degree in business management. Although he attended elementary English classes before admission into the course, his linguistic competency is rather modest. As an L2 student, he restricted his linguistic study to class time, and beyond the classroom, he found it hard to engage in any extra-class activities that could improve his linguistic competencies. Varun had categorically articulated that he was not majoring in English but business management, since his desire to know English stemmed from the integrative drive of associating with other speakers, or business contacts when he goes back to India to manage his family business.

From the two cases, the motivations to learn English are varied. Marco anticipates becoming a doctor while Varun intends to finish his college studies and go back to India. Marco’s learning behavior integrates a mix of both declarative and procedural knowledge. He acquires semantic knowledge from class and the extra homework, while his participation in Bible reading and church drama confer episodic knowledge (Faruji, 2012). Besides, in the course of his consultations and additional reading, Marco could have developed implicit, nonconscious processes of learning reminiscent of procedural knowledge. This latter construct could have improved his linguistic competencies. Unlike Marco, Varun relies on the class-based semantic knowledge to improve his English command. The limited aspects of episodic and procedural knowledge imply that he may have issues encoding his nonconscious memory for linguistic competencies (Faruji, 2012); hence, his modest linguistic aptitude. Additionally, Varun may encounter recall challenges because of reliance on classroom-based learning alone.

Empirical Studies on L2 Motivations

The plausibility between motivation and L2 learning is well articulated I research. Existing studies have shown that motivation is a strong differential predictor for a successful second language acquisitions (Murty et al., 2011; Rubenfeld et al., 2007; Taguchi, 2006). Taguchi (2006)’s study investigated whether the motivation is a predictor for second language acquisition demonstrated substantial mean grammar gains for some schools, but not others. He utilized a pre- and post-test survey of the students from four schools in South Australia. The “Communicative orientation of language teaching” (COLT) was used to measure the learning outcomes. The measures in this study include language gain and subject rank. They found that the school and class environment, coupled with teacher qualities and student desires mediated ESL learning and learner competencies in the English language. Murty et al. (2011) sought to determine whether the motivation was good for learning. They adapted the Morris water test and used it to investigate the rewards-punishment aspects of motivation in task completion. Their findings show that monetary bonuses for accurate performance and the electric shock for incorrect performance increased the self-reported performances for guided learning. The measures used included approach motivation and avoidance motivation. The findings on motivated learning were more leaning towards rewards than punishment.

Similarly, a study by Rubenfeld et al. (2007) seeking the role of motivation and goal content congruence on second language acquisition found that student motives and goals influenced their linguistic competencies. The trio employed a cross-sectional survey where they administered a self-reported questionnaire where the participants’ language motivations were assessed evaluated using the Language Learning Orientation Scale (LLOS). The researchers measured self-determination in language acquisition by subdividing the scale into intrinsic and extrinsic subscales. Despite the linguistic differences conferred by motivation, age and culture also affected the outcome differences (Rubenfeld et al., 2007), while motivation type (approach or avoidance) (Murty et al., 2011) and the learning milieu (Taguchi, 2006) also potentiated learner differences.

Applying this scholarship to Marco and Varun’s cases, motivations predicted their English language competencies. Marco was obviously more motivated by his interests in becoming a doctor (intrinsic) and learning milieu (teacher and church), which contributed to his declarative learning and procedural knowledge. His continuous learning activities bolstered his declarative and procedural memories, which facilitated the encoding of those memories and subsequent English language fluency (Murty et al., 2011). His drive demonstrates the influence of motivation and goal content congruence in his English language acquisition (Rubenfeld et al., 2007). Varun, on the other hand, was motivated by modest linguistic competencies that could enable him to manage his family business and interact with his business contacts. His learning behavior of restricting English language acquisition to classroom demonstrates limited declarative knowledge, and the subsequent limited encoding of the information to bolster his linguistic competencies. This attribute limits linguistic gains since he spends limited time on English (Taguchi, 2006), and risks forgetting the various English language constructs because of a short implicit memory repeated learning.

Knowledge Application

The knowledge on learning and memory regarding L2 acquisition is important in understanding individual motivations in foreign language learning. Personally, I have come to appreciate the role of motivation in conferring individual differences on L2 learning. Because of this construct, I will encourage L2 learners to identify their intrinsic and external motivations to learning a new language. This way, they will understand whether they need extra effort in learning the language or whether they should moderate on their learning habits. Their motivations and goal congruence will also help in their memory encoding, and if they need to be more linguistically competent, I will advise them to focus on implicit language activities such as speech performance because doing so will increase both their declarative and procedural knowledge and related memory encoding. Professionally, I will use the individual linguistic differences to modify my communication competencies to meet the linguistic needs of my clients. I will also be advising them to build on their procedural knowledge and the different ways of meeting this goal if they desire L2 fluency and aptitude. This way, I will be helping them to bridge their linguistic gaps in whichever language they want to learn.

Conclusion

Learning a foreign language is challenging, considering the advanced age the person begins the language acquisition. However, despite the existing challenges, the L2 learners experience similar stages of language development to their native others. Individual differences have been posted to mediate the linguistic competencies exhibit by these learners. Motivation (whether internal or extrinsic) has been implicated in these variations and is a positive predictor for language abilities and fluency. Because of the modulating effects of the declarative and procedural brain systems, educators and linguistic professionals need to structure their L2 course content around the student motivations to L2 learning to facilitate encoding and future remembrance of the language capabilities.

References

Faruji, L.F. (2012). Declarative versus procedural memory: Roles in second language Acquisition. Broad research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 3(1), 37-49.

Murty, V.P., LaBar, K.S., Hamilton, D.A., & Adcock, R.A. (2011). Is all motivation good for learning? Dissociable influences of approach and avoidance motivation in declarative memory. Learning & Memory, 18, 712-717.

Rubenfeld, S., Sinclair, L., & Clement, R. (2007). Second language learning and acculturation: The role of motivation and goal content congruence. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL), 10(3), 309-323.

Taguchi, K. (2006). Is motivation a predictor of foreign language learning? International Educational Journal, 7(4), 560-569.