Conference PaperPDF Available

L2 buoyancy: Exploring learners’ everyday resilience in the language classroom

August 2016

Conference: Psychology of Language Learning 2 (PLL2)
At: University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Authors:

Saerom Yun

International Graduate School of English

Phil Hiver

Florida State University

Ali H. Al-Hoorie

Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu

Content uploaded by Ali H. Al-Hoorie

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Ali H. Al-Hoorie

Content may be subject to copyright.

L2 buoyancy:

Exploring learners’ everyday resilience

in the language classroom

Saerom Yun │Phil Hiver

International Graduate School of English

Ali Al-Hoorie

University of Nottingham

2016 Psychology of Language Learning 2

Jyväskylä, Finland

(Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Dörnyei, 2005; Gardner & Lambert, 1972;

Gardner, 2007; Martin, 2002; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Staw, 1989)

ENGLISH ENGLISH

Successful L2 learner Motivated L2 learner

In L2 Learning

Why are even motivated students likely to be debilitated

by adversity and setbacks experienced in a school setting?

(e.g., poor performance, study pressure, any other academic stress)

∙ Motivational states of language learners are rather fluctuating than steady.

∙ Motivation tends to decline at a certain level once learners gradually began to lose their

desire and interests in learning a new language.

(Dörnyei, 2000; Ushioda, 2008)

Motivation is variable.

What should be more importantly considered?

1. Maintenance of motivational states against various distracting language learning

circumstances

2. Insufficiency of motivation to solely explain successful L2 learning.

Another complementary concept is needed.

Buoyancy

L2 motivation

Main Concepts

Positive

Psychology

Resilience Buoyancy

In Educational

Psychology

Individual learner’s ability to manage their

everyday academic setbacks and

difficulties inevitable in the ordinary school

life such as poor grades, exam pressure,

and difficult schoolwork.

(Martin & Marsh, 2008; 2009)

Buoyancy

Math

(Martin & Marsh, 2008)

Buoyancy in learning mathematics

෍

𝒌

𝒏

𝒌

Buoyancy

Successful L2 learning

L2 achievement

For the success of L2 learning,

learners probably need ability

to overcome all difficulties

in the course of L2 learning.

L2 stress

L2 pressure

L2 difficulties

Poor L2 outcomes

…. etc.

Successful L2 learning

1) to sustain motivation to obtain successful performance despite some academic

difficulties.

2) to help students proactively bounce back and step forward from adversities and

underachievement.

L2 buoyancy

Research Questions

Does buoyancy exist in second language learning?

What are the typical outcomes or profiles of buoyancy for second language learners

at college level?

What is the relationship between buoyancy and L2 achievement?

Hypothesized Predictors

L2 buoyancy

Self

-efficacy

Students’ beliefs and confidence in their ability in their L2 work

Self

-regulation

Students’ certainty about how to do well in L2 learning

Ideal L2 self

Students’ future images of themselves as competent L2 speakers

L2 persistence

Students’ abilities to follow through with completing L2 tasks

L2 anxiety

Student’s nervousness about not doing well in L2 learning

-S relationship

Students’ perceptions toward their L2 teachers

(Martin & Marsh, 2006, 2008)

L2 buoyancy

(In L2 learning)

Self-efficacy

Self-regulation

Ideal self

Persistence

Anxiety

T-S Relationship

L2 Achievement

Predictors

Outcome variable

Profiles

1. Participant

2. Procedure & Results

2-1. Cluster Analysis

2-2. CFA & SEM

METHODS & RESULTS

Participants

For Questionnaire survey based data

6Universities

in Seoul & Gyeonggi-do, Korea

878Respondents

Research Questions

Does buoyancy exist in second language learning?

What are the typical outcomes or profiles of buoyancy for second language learners

at college level?

What is the relationship between buoyancy and L2 achievement?

Cluster Analysis

Questionnaire Survey Cluster Analysis

Cluster Solution

▪Two-step clustering

▪One-way ANOVA

▪Post Hoc comparisons /Tukey’s HSD test

▪k-means clustering

▪Multinomial logistic regression

▪6-point Likert Scale

Method 1

Procedure

Variables Entered into Cluster Analysis

Validational

Variable

self-efﬁcacy L2

self-regulation Ideal

L2 self L2

persistence L2

anxiety T-S

relationship L2 buoyancy

Cluster 1 (n = 111)

Ideally

buoyant L2 learners 5.16 4.53 5.22 4.75 2.08 5.11 4.98

Cluster 2 (n = 317)

Buoyant L2 learners 4.05 3.82 4.36 3.99 3.25 4.46 4.18

Cluster 3 (n = 227)

Minimally

buoyant L2 learners 3.53 3.41 3.77 3.41 3.59 3.69 3.60

Cluster 4 (n = 186)

Dependent L2 learners 2.80 3.16 2.96 3.04 4.63 3.69 3.03

Cluster 5 (n = 38)

Fragile L2 learners 3.14 2.70 1.82 1.69 3.34 1.81 1.79

Result 1

Cluster Analysis

1.79 3.03 3.60 4.18 4.98

Ideally buoyant L2 learners Fragile L2 learners

Result 1

Cluster Analysis

Cluster 1

Ideally buoyant L2 learners

5.16

4.53

5.22

L2 self-efficacy

4.75

2.08

5.11

L2 self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 persistence

L2 anxiety

T-S relationship

4.98 L2 buoyancy

▪Male n=64

▪Female n=47

----------------

n=111

12.6% of the total

12.6

36.1

25.7

21.2

4.3

65.8

13.5

7.2

13.5

▪1st

▪2nd

▪3rd

▪4th

21.6

6.3

3.6

27.0

33.3

4.5

3.6

▪English

▪Other Languages

▪Humanities

▪Engineering

▪Social Science

▪Natural Science

▪Others

│Gender│

│Year│

65.8 (n=73)

13.5 (n=15)

7.2 (n= 8)

13.5 (n=15)

│Major│

21.6 (n=24)

6.3 (n= 7)

3.6 (n= 4)

27.0 (n=30)

33.3 (n=37)

4.5 (n= 5)

3.6 (n= 4)

Result 1

Cluster Profiles

Cluster 2

Buoyant L2 learners

4.05

3.82

4.36

L2 self-efficacy

3.99

3.25

4.46

L2 self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 persistence

L2 anxiety

T-S relationship

4.18 L2 buoyancy

12.6

36.1

25.7

21.2

4.3

▪Male n=182

▪Female n=135

----------------

n=317

36.1% of the total

65.0

18.6

8.5 7.9

▪1st

▪2nd

▪3rd

▪4th

65.0 (n=206)

18.6 (n=59)

8.5 (n=27)

7.9 (n=25)

10.7

4.77.9

33.1

29.7

7.9 6.0

▪English

▪Other Languages

▪Humanities

▪Engineering

▪Social Science

▪Natural Science

▪Others

10.7 (n=34)

4.7 (n=15)

7.9 (n=25)

33.1 (n=105)

29.7 (n=94)

7.9 (n=25)

6.0 (n=19)

│Gender│

│Year│

│Major│

Result 1

Cluster Profiles

Cluster 3

Minimally buoyant L2 learners

3.53

3.41

3.77

L2 self-efficacy

3.41

3.59

3.69

L2 self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 persistence

L2 anxiety

T-S relationship

3.60 L2 buoyancy

▪Male n=110

▪Female n=116

----------------

n=226

25.7% of the total

12.6

36.1

25.7

21.2

4.3

63.7

19.9

8.4 8.0

▪1st

▪2nd

▪3rd

▪4th

7.5

4.06.2

36.3

30.9

10.2 4.9

▪English

▪Other Languages

▪Humanities

▪Engineering

▪Social Science

▪Natural Science

▪Others

63.7 (n=144)

19.9 (n=45)

8.4 (n=19)

8.0 (n=18)

7.5 (n=17)

4.0 (n= 9)

6.2 (n=14)

36.3 (n=82)

30.9 (n=70)

10.2 (n=23)

4.9 (n=11)

│Gender│

│Year│

│Major│

Result 1

Cluster Profiles

Cluster 4

Dependent L2 learners

2.80

3.16

2.96

L2 self-efficacy

3.04

4.63

3.69

L2 self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 persistence

L2 anxiety

T-S relationship

3.03 L2 buoyancy

▪Male n=87

▪Female n=99

----------------

n=186

21.2% of the total

12.6

36.1

25.7

21.2

4.3

55.9

19.9

11.8

12.4

▪1st

▪2nd

▪3rd

▪4th

4.95.4

8.1

26.8

36.5

12.4

5.9

▪English

▪Other Languages

▪Humanities

▪Engineering

▪Social Science

▪Natural Science

▪Others

55.9 (n=104)

19.9 (n=37)

11.8 (n=22)

12.4 (n=23)

4.9 (n= 9)

5.4 (n=10)

8.1 (n=15)

26.8 (n=50)

36.5 (n=68)

12.4 (n=23)

5.9 (n=11)

│Gender│

│Year│

│Major│

Result 1

Cluster Profiles

Cluster 5

Fragile L2 learners

3.14

2.70

L2 self-efficacy

3.34

L2 self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 persistence

L2 anxiety

T-S relationship

L2 buoyancy

1.79

1.82

1.69

1.81

▪Male n=25

▪Female n=13

----------------

n=38

4.3% of the total

12.6

36.1

25.7

21.2

4.3

81.6

7.9

5.3 5.3

▪1st

▪2nd

▪3rd

▪4th

2.6

5.3

71.1

10.5

7.9

2.6

▪English

▪Other Languages

▪Humanities

▪Engineering

▪Social Science

▪Natural Science

▪Others

81.6 (n=31)

7.9 (n= 3)

5.3 (n= 2)

2.6 (n= 1)

- (n= 0)

5.3 (n= 2)

71.1 (n=27)

10.5 (n= 4)

7.9 (n= 3)

2.6 (n= 1)

│Gender│

│Year│

│Major│

Result 1

Cluster Profiles

Hypothesized model for SEM CFA & SEM

Construct Reliability

▪With finalized scales

▪Convergent validity

▪Discriminant validity

Method 2

Procedure

Research Questions

Does buoyancy exist in second language learning?

What are the typical outcomes or profiles of buoyancy for second language learners

at college level?

What is the relationship between buoyancy and L2 achievement?

CFA and SEM

Result 2

CFA and SEM

Path βBSE CR

Self

-efficacy

→ L2 Buoyancy

.31 .33 .046 7.26***

Self

-regulation .39 .42 .044 9.49***

Ideal L2 self

.29 .27 .038 7.01***

Anxiety

.07 .06 .034 1.72†

-S relationship .17 .16 .037 4.26***

L2 buoyancy

→ L2 Achievement

.24 .21 .052 4.02***

Self

-efficacy .05 .04 .035 1.23

Self

-regulation .01 .01 .042 0.32

Ideal L2 self

.08 .06 .030 2.13*

Result 2

CFA and SEM

L2 achievement

L2 buoyancy

self-efficacy

self-regulation

L2 anxiety

T-S

relationship

Ideal L2 self

.31

.39

.29

.07

.17

.01

.08

.05

.24

[The Structural Model]

Note. Statistically significant (p < .05) standardized (β) coefficients

for the structural model predicting L2 achievement

Path βBSE CR

Self

-efficacy

→ L2

Buoyancy

.31 .33 .046

7.26***

Self

-regulation .39 .42 .044

9.49***

Ideal L2 self

.29 .27 .038

7.01***

Anxiety

.07 .06 .034 1.72†

-S relationship .17 .16 .037

4.26***

L2 buoyancy

→ L2

Achievement

.24 .21 .052

4.02***

Self

-efficacy .05 .04 .035 1.23

Self

-regulation .01 .01 .042 0.32

Ideal L2 self

.08 .06 .030 2.13*

DISCUSSION

Discussion 1

Role of L2 self in L2 buoyancy

self-efficacy

self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 anxiety

T-S

relationship

buoyancy

L2 achievement

L2 buoyancy

self-efficacy

self-regulation

L2 anxiety

T-S

relationship

Ideal L2 self

.31

.39

.29

.07

.17

.01

.08

.05

.24

[The Structural Model]

Note. Statistically significant (p < .05) standardized (β) coefficients for the structural model predicting L2 achieve

ment and general learning achievement (GPA).

Discussion 1

Role of L2 self in L2 buoyancy

Cluster 1

Ideally buoyant L2 learners

5.16

4.53

5.22

L2 self-efficacy

2.08

5.11

L2 self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 anxiety

T-S relationship

4.98 L2 buoyancy

Cluster 5

Fragile L2 learners

3.14

2.70

L2 self-efficacy

3.34

L2 self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 anxiety

T-S relationship

L2 buoyancy

1.79

1.82

1.81

Discussion 1

Role of L2 self in L2 buoyancy

↑

↓

↑

↓

↑

↓

All three L2 self constructs are conceptually linked to L2 buoyancy.

▪They play powerful roles in developing L2 buoyancy.

▪L2 buoyancy may require a robust L2 self

self-efficacy

self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

Discussion 1

Role of L2 self in L2 buoyancy

L2 anxiety

Discussion 2

Role of T-S relationship in L2 Buoyancy

self-efficacy

self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

buoyancy

T-S

relationship

L2 achievement

L2 buoyancy

self-efficacy

self-regulation

L2 anxiety

T-S

relationship

Ideal L2 self

.31

.39

.29

.07

.17

.01

.08

.05

.24

[The Structural Model]

Note. Statistically significant (p < .05) standardized (β) coefficients

for the structural model predicting L2 achievement

Discussion 2

Role of T-S relationship in L2 Buoyancy

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Cluster 5

df Tukey’s post-hoc tests F-value / p η2

L2 self

-efficacy 5.16 4.05 3.53 2.80 3.14 4 1 > 2 > 3 > 5 > 4

351.5/.0001

.62

L2 self

-regulation 4.53 3.82 3.41 3.16 2.70 4 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5

148.9/.0001

.41

Ideal L2 self

5.22 4.36 3.77 2.96 1.82 4 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5

269.7/.0001

.55

L2 persistence

4.75 3.99 3.41 3.04 1.69 4 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5

255.2/.0001

.54

L2 anxiety

2.08 3.25 3.59 4.63 3.34 4 4 > 3 , 5 , 2 > 1

149.7/.0001

.41

-S relationship 5.11 4.46 3.69 3.69 1.81 4 1 > 2 > 3 , 4 > 5

222.8/.0001

.51

Discussion 3

Role of L2 Anxiety in L2 buoyancy

Cluster 2

Buoyant L2 learners

4.05

3.82

4.36

L2 self-efficacy

3.25

4.46

L2 self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 anxiety

T-S relationship

4.18 L2 buoyancy

Cluster 5

Fragile L2 learners

3.14

2.70

L2 self-efficacy

3.34

L2 self-regulation

Ideal L2 self

L2 anxiety

T-S relationship

L2 buoyancy

1.79

1.82

1.81

Discussion 3

Role of L2 Anxiety in L2 buoyancy

▪Learners who have sufficient high level of L2 self seem to have an ability

to cope with negative emotional states.

▪Strengthening L2 learners’ positive psychological factors in the face of

the external threat may more successfully help learners develop ability to

overcome everyday stress and setbacks in L2 learning context.

“Successful learners can utilize their specific strengths and compensate for their pos

sible weaknesses in adjustment to the particular learning environment.”

(Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 28)

L2 learners who have a certain degree of anxiety can be buoyant!

L2 anxiety

Discussion 3

Role of L2 Anxiety in L2 buoyancy

Discussion 4

Role of Buoyancy in L2 Achievement

buoyancy

self-efficacy L2

Achievement

self-

regulation

Mediator

∙ L2 self constructs may only be able to indirectly affect L2 achievement mediated through L2 buoyancy.

Ideal L2 self

L2 achievement

L2 buoyancy

self-efficacy

self-regulation

L2 anxiety

T-S

relationship

Ideal L2 self

.31

.39

.29

.07

.17

.01

.08

.05

.24

[The Structural Model]

Note. Statistically significant (p < .05) standardized (β) coefficients for the structural model predicting L2 achieve

ment and general learning achievement (GPA).

Discussion 4

Role of Buoyancy in L2 Achievement

Path βBSE CR

Self

-efficacy

→ L2 Buoyancy

.31 .33 .046 7.26***

Self

-regulation .39 .42 .044 9.49***

Ideal L2 self

.29 .27 .038 7.01***

Anxiety

.07 .06 .034 1.72†

-S relationship .17 .16 .037 4.26***

L2 buoyancy

→ L2 Achievement

.24 .21 .052 4.02***

Self

-efficacy .05 .04 .035 1.23

Self

-regulation .01 .01 .042 0.32

Ideal L2 self

.08 .06 .030 2.13*

References

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 155–168

Dörnyei, Z. (2000). Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualisation of student motivation. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 519–538.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gardner, R. C. (2007). Motivation and Second Language Acquisition 1. Porta Linguarum, 8, 9–20.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gottfried, A. E. (1982). Relations between academic intrinsic motivation and anxiety in children and young adolesents. Journal of School Psychology Psychology, 20, 205–215.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132.

Kohn, P. M., Lafreniere, K., & Gurevich, M. (1991). Hassles, health, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 478–82.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning : A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41(1), 85–117.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second langauge. Language Learning, 44(2), 283–305

Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 77–172.

Martin, A. J. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model for student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 46(I), 34–49.

Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 53–83.

Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy: Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates and cognate constructs.

Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 353–370.

Masgoret, A. –M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta–analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning,

53(1), 123–163.

Shirom, A. (1986). Students’ stress. Higher Education, 15(6), 667–676.

Smith, P. L., & Fouad, N. A. (1999). Subject-matter specificity of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, interests, and goals: Implications for the social-cognitive model.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(4), 461–471.

Staw, B. M. (1989). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In H. J. Leavitt, L. R. Pondy, & D. M. Boje (Eds.), Readings in managerial psychology (4th ed., pp. 36–71).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good lanauge learners (pp. 19–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zeidner, M. (1992). Sources of academic stress: the case of first year Jewish and Arab college students in Israel. Higher Education, 24(1), 25–40.

THANK YOU

Saerom Yun │ Philip Hiver │ Ali-Al-Hoorie

La relación entre ansiedad y rendimiento académico en los estudiantes ecuatorianos de 15 años

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024

Anxiety is a state of mind of intense worry that can affect students’ performance both positively and negatively. Internationally, recent studies show high percentages of students diagnosed with anxiety and depression. This paper seeks to quantitatively analyze how anxiety is related to academic performance in Ecuadorian students. An Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) model with school fixed effects estimates an educational production function. The results confirm that, up to certain levels of anxiety, students' scores improve. However, once anxiety levels are elevated -a threshold that is higher for male students- scores are negatively affected. These findings are relevant for two reasons. First, during adolescence, experiences and interpersonal relationships impact personality construction and influence the development of cognitive, non-cognitive and emotional skills. Second, given the current post-pandemic situation, in which anxiety is a frequent scenario. This research concludes that it is necessary to reflect on the importance of rethinking pedagogical processes in schools and to analyze strategies to introduce mental health in the school curriculum.

Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students' everyday academic resilience

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2008

Academic buoyancy is developed as a construct reflecting everyday academic resilience within a positive psychology context and is defined as students' ability to successfully deal with academic setbacks and challenges that are typical of the ordinary course of school life (e.g., poor grades, competing deadlines, exam pressure, difficult schoolwork). Data were collected from 598 students in Years 8 and 10 at five Australian high schools. Half-way through the school year and then again at the end of the year, students were asked to rate their academic buoyancy as well as a set of hypothesized predictors (self-efficacy, control, academic engagement, anxiety, teacher-student relationship) in the area of mathematics. Multilevel modeling found that the bulk of variance in academic buoyancy was explained at the student level. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling showed that (a) Time 1 anxiety (negatively), self-efficacy, and academic engagement significantly predict Time 1 academic buoyancy; (b) Time 2 anxiety (negatively), self-efficacy, academic engagement, and teacher-student relationships explain variance in Time 2 academic buoyancy over and above that explained by academic buoyancy at Time 1; and (c) of the significant predictors, anxiety explains the bulk of variance in academic buoyancy.

Motivation and Academic Resilience: Developing a Model for Student Enhancement

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2002

Andrew J Martin

This paper explores a model of motivation and introduces the concept of academic resilience. Although motivation is critical to academic success, academic gains that students make can be lost if they are not resilient to setback, study pressure, and stress in the school setting. It is therefore important that students are motivated and resilient to academic pressures. A problem with motivation theory and research, however, is that it has not been formulated in a way that provides educators and students with a common language with which to develop motivation and academic resilience in the classroom. This paper draws together seminal motivation theory, posits clear constructs that represent these theories, and then repackages them into a model that can be used by educators and understood by students. Such a model also holds direct implications in the classroom and counselling contexts, and the strategies for enhancing motivation and academic resilience are discussed.

Academic resilience and academic buoyancy: Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates and cognate constructs

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2009

‘Academic resilience’ refers to a student’s capacity to overcome acute or chronic adversities that are seen as major assaults on educational processes. Although intersecting with highly vulnerable and important populations, academic resilience does not map onto the many students who are faced with setbacks, challenges and pressures that are part of more regular academic life. This, it is argued, reflects ‘academic buoyancy’ that maps onto the many students who must negotiate the ups and downs of everyday academic life as distinct from acute and chronic adversities relevant to more traditional constructions of academic resilience. Inherent in this argument, then, is a proposed hierarchical framework in which academic buoyancy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for academic resilience. Such a hierarchical framework, therefore, has the potential to speak to all students and so represents an encompassing framework that can more fully explain the nature and extent of adversities and challenges that are part of academic life. We further contend that academic resilience and academic buoyancy require multidimensional approaches to their conceptualising and measurement in order to most effectively differentiate the factors that are (and are not) components, causes, correlates and cognate to them. We conclude by proposing a number of conceptual and empirical approaches to a next generation of research into academic resilience and academic buoyancy, develop the notion of ‘leading’ and ‘lagging’ indicators of buoyancy and resilience, and identify the implications of our framework for intervention and policy in the academic domain and beyond.

The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition

Article

Apr 2014

Zoltán Dörnyei

Research results over the past decades have consistently demonstrated that a key reason why many second language learners fail--while some learners do better with less effort--lies in various learner attributes such as personality traits, motivation, or language aptitude. In psychology, these attributes have traditionally been called "individual differences." The scope of individual learner differences is broad--ranging from creativity to learner styles and anxiety--yet there is no current, comprehensive, and unified volume that provides an overview of the considerable amount of research conducted on various language learner differences, until now.

Motivation and good language learners

Article

Apr 2008

Ema Ushioda

It almost goes without saying that good language learners are motivated. Common sense and everyday experience suggest that the high achievers of this world have motivation, a word which derives from the Latin verb movere meaning to move. Thus, simply defined, we might say that motivation concerns what moves a person to make certain choices, to engage in action, and to persist in action. The need for personal motivation is a message that resonates across so many stories of major and minor human endeavor, whether in the single-minded dedication of an athlete pursuing an Olympic dream, the drive and ambition of a young executive aiming for the top of the corporate ladder, or the willpower and self-discipline of someone determined to lose weight or to give up smoking. Without motivation, success will be hard to come by, and the case of learning a second or foreign language is little different. Motivation is listed by Rubin (1975) among the three essential variables on which good language learning depends. As Corder (1967, p. 164) famously put it forty years ago, “Let us say that, given motivation, it is inevitable that a human being will learn a second language if he is exposed to the language data.” Yet however commonsensical this general observation might be, the pursuit of its empirical verification has exercised language acquisition scholars for decades and generated an enormous amount of research.

Motivation and Second-Language Acquisition

Article

Jan 1996

The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.

The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited

Book

May 2015

Over the past decade, the focus of inquiry into the psychology of SLA has shifted from the analysis of various characteristics within individuals towards a greater consideration of individuals’ dynamic interactions with diverse contexts. This revisit of the bestselling The Psychology of the Language Learner reflects on these developments by challenging some of the assumptions upon which the original text was based, maintaining the familiar structure of the original, while situating the discussion within a very different theoretical framework.

Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning

Article