A Holistic View 13 To Get You Thinking Before You Read 1. To what extent do you think individual differences play a complex role in language learning? 2. To what extent do you think some or all of these individual differences are dynamic (that is, they can change)? 3. How does socio-ecological context affect the role played by individual differences in language learning? Background As noted in the Overview at the beginning of this book, Complex/dynamic Systems Theory has come to be widely considered as important in language learning since it was introduced to the language learning field by Larsen-Freeman (1997). What this implies is that successful language learning does not depend on isolated factors (e.g. aptitude, age, gender, strategies) but on complex interactions among all possible variables. Not only that, but these interactions are going to be dynamic (that is, they can change); for instance, changes in an individual’s beliefs (e.g. about gender roles) may result in different strategy choices. To further complicate the picture, context cannot be ignored as contributing to the complex mix. It is possible, for instance, that students may be more or less autonomous or motivated according to the ecological or sociocultural environment in the background of their lives and/or in which they find themselves. In short, we can see that none of these factors exists in isolation. Therefore, although from a practical research point of view it may be necessary to look at variables one or few at a time, it is ultimately essential to put the whole picture back together and look at it holistically. © The Author(s) 2020 C. Griffiths, A. Soruç, Individual Differences in Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52900-0_13 197 198 13 A Holistic View Therefore, it is the possible interaction of the factors examined in this book, and how this may impact language learning which this chapter will now explore by investigating the relative importance of the 11 individual differences explored in this volume. Perceptions of the relative importance of individual differences The study reported here was conducted in two stages at educational institutions in Istanbul, Turkey • The first stage was to a group of practising teachers (N = 12) at a K12 school, of whom 9 were female and 3 were male, 3 were aged in their 20s and 9 were more than 30. Teaching experience ranged from 4 to 28 years. • The second stage was to a group of pre-service student teachers (N = 29), studying at university level, of whom 22 were female and 7 were male. There were 28 in their 20s and just one was in his 30s. Instrument In order to explore the relative importance which might be ascribed to individual differences in successful language learning, a questionnaire was constructed based on 11 individual difference factors (motivation, aptitude, strategies, gender, beliefs, autonomy, personality, style, age, affect, culture/na tionality/ethnicity/race). Participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale from 5=strongly agree to 1=strongly disagree (see Appendix) according to how strongly they agreed that the questionnaire items specifying individual differences are important for successful language learning. Data Collection In the case of the 2 groups, there was a seminar on individual differences before the questionnaire was administered to ensure that the concepts were understood. In order to fulfil ethical requirements, permission for the study was obtained from the school or university authorities, and participants were asked to indicate consent for the use of the data in research and/or publication. All the participants agreed and signed the consent letter. Data Analysis After collection, the questionnaire was analysed for reliability, and the alpha coefficient proved to be 0.7, with no item substantially altering the reliability if removed, which is adequate in the Social Sciences (e.g. Dörnyei, 2007). Since data obtained from Likert scales are ordinal, they were analysed for median levels of agreement for the importance of the identified individual differences, and Mann-Whitney U tests for nonparametric data were used to calculate differences according to gender and age (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018; Dörnyei, 2007). Effect sizes were calculated using Yanati’s online formula for Mann-Whitney U and expressed as a percentage of variance. Magnitude of effect size was assessed using Plonsky and Oswald’s (2014) benchmarks for Social Science. Statistics were calculated according to Background 199 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) Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Individual difference Motivation Aptitude Strategies Gender Positive beliefs Autonomy Personality Style Age Affect/emotions, feelings Culture/nationality/ethnicity/race ALL 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 PT 5 3.5 4 3 5 5 4 4 3 5 3 PST 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 the group of practising teachers (N = 12), Pre-service teachers (N = 29) and overall (N = 41). Quantitative Results Medians As we can see from Table 13.1, there is strong unanimous agreement (median=5) about the importance of motivation. Both groups are also in agreement (median=4) about the importance of personality and style. And both groups are neutral (median=3) about the importance of gender and culture. There is less unanimity expressed for the remaining factors (aptitude, strategies, beliefs, autonomy, age, affect). None of the items attracted a median or disagree (rating=2) or strongly disagree (rating=1), suggesting that, overall, the participants agree that all items are at least somewhat important. Differences In terms of differences, using Mann-Whitney U for nonparametric data: • The inexperienced group of pre-service teachers (N = 29) expressed significantly stronger agreement about the importance of aptitude (p = 0.039, r = 0.377) This represents an effect size of 14.2% of variance, a small but approaching moderate effect size (Plonsky & Oswald, 2014). Experienced teachers (N = 12) were more strongly in agreement about the importance of affect (p = 0.026, r = 0.408, 16.6% of variance, a low-medium effect size). • The younger group (in their 20s, N = 31) were significantly more strongly in agreement about the importance of aptitude (p = 0.043, r = 0.369), strategies (p = 0.041, r = 0.372), and age (p = 0.029, r = 0.399), which represent 13.5%, 13.9% and 15.9% of the variance respectively, which would be considered small, although the difference in the perceptions of age is approaching a medium effect size (Plonsky & Oswald, 2014) There were no significant differences according to participant’s gender ◄ 200 13 A Holistic View Qualitative Results ◄ The participants were also asked to add any comments they might have about the individual differences surveyed to the questionnaire form. Although not all of the participants added comments, many did, which adds an interesting qualitative dimension to the study for triangulation with the quantitative data. Altogether, the first author of this book identified 117 comments, which were already allocated to the items concerned, making further thematic coding generally unnecessary. Upon further examination, however, the second author re-allocated 3 of the comments to more thematically appropriate items. This was agreed between the authors after discussion, making an inter-rater agreement rate of 97%. Since there were far too many comments to report all of them here, some of the more interesting and insightful have been selected for the purposes of illustration. Although the comments are not actually divided according to whether they were made by the experienced or the pre-service teachers, it might be worth noting that Participants 1–12 were practising teachers, while Participants 13–41 were pre-service. It should also be remembered that all of the participants were non-native speakers of English, so their comments included occasional “infelicities”. For the sake of authenticity, their comments have been reported here verbatim, although occasionally abbreviated. 1. Motivation. As noted in Table 13.1 above, there was strong agreement (median=5) by both practising and pre-service teachers that motivation is important for successful language learning. All of the comments reinforce this idea: Participant 25: Without motivation, learning would last for a little time. Participant 33: Motivation means setting a goal and in the way of language learning everybody needs a goal. 2. Aptitude. As we can see from Table 13.1, there is overall agreement that aptitude is important for successful language learning, although experienced teachers are less strongly in agreement (median=3.5) than pre-service teachers (median=4, a difference which proved to be significant, see above). Might this suggest that experienced teachers are less inclined to believe that aptitude is a fixed characteristic, but that an apparent lack of aptitude can be compensated for by other factors? Comments on this item include: Participant 2: Some students are born gifted. They are sharp and they learn easily. Participant 36: Every person has a kind of aptitude. Language learning aptitude is important to be successful. Nobody actually disagreed that aptitude is important 3. Strategies. Strategies were rated 5 overall, and again, agreement was stronger for the pre-service teachers (median=5) than for the practising teachers (median=4). Might this reflect a greater contemporary awareness of the Background 201 importance of strategies which is being transmitted in teacher education programmes? Comments include: Participant 12: [Strategies are] essential to language learning. Participant 39: We, as teachers, must make our learners be aware of their learning strategies. Other participants, however, disagree that strategy instruction is a teacher’s responsibility. For instance: Participant 25: It is better to make learners come up with these strategies by themselves rather than teaching them. 4. Gender. The neutral rating overall and by both groups (median=3) might suggest a degree of uncertainty over the role played by gender in language learning, and, indeed, this ambivalence is evident in a number of the responses. Since we need to consider that there may be some level of gender bias among the participants themselves, the participant’s genders will be noted for this item: Participant 1: (male). My sister used to be better than me, but when we became adults I got better. Participant 2: (female). Girls are more organized and planned. Participant 41: (male). Male students might be better at grammar because of their logical thinking. Females would be better at expressing feeling. Others, however, seem to believe that there is no difference between males and females when it comes to language learning. In fact, 11 participants comment to this effect, for instance: Participant 36: (female). Every kind of gender can learn when they want. It doesn’t matter the gender. 5. Beliefs. There is general agreement among the participants that positive beliefs are important. Indeed, the experienced teachers give it a median rating of 5 (strongly agree), which might be due to their classroom experience gained over the years, although the pre-service teachers gave it only a median rating of 4 (agree). Participant 35: [It is] important students should believe that they will be successful about learning. Participant 37 links positive beliefs to motivation: Positive beliefs motivate us for being successful. 6. Autonomy. The practising teachers are also more strongly in agreement that autonomy is important (rating=5) than the pre-service teachers (median=4). Perhaps experience has taught them the truth of the old proverb: you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. In other words, the teacher can do so much, but in the end it is the learner who does the learning: Participant 1 seems to feel that he presents an example of autonomous learning: I am a self-taught learner. I learned English through reading and listening. Participant 15 links autonomy to strategies: Learners need to have some autonomy to develop strategies. 202 7. 8. 9. 10. 13 A Holistic View Participant 25 connects autonomy with schemata: Autonomous learners make more connections with their background knowledge. Participant 36 associates autonomy with self-awareness: People should be aware of their negative and positive sides so they can regulate their learning strategies. Personality: According to both the practising and pre-service teachers in this study, agreement is uniform over both groups and overall that personality is important (median=4) in language learning. Participant 2: Active [personalities] like visiting the language and they take more part in the lesson. Participant 40: To be able to learn a language, students should first know themselves. Participant 13: however, disagrees: This has no importance, I think. Style: Agreement is also uniform (median=4) over style. Participant 2: Once you know your style you can organize your learning, for example learn vocabulary with pictures (visual) or listen (audio). Participant 13: matches learning style to teaching style: Everyone learns in different ways so teaching style must be different. Age: Agreement varied on the age issue, with the experienced teachers giving it only a median of 3, while the pre-service teachers gave it a median of 4, which might be attributed to evolving awareness that adults can also learn languages. Participant 10 quotes her own experience: My first English course was at the age of 18. I believe I did well. Participant 12 is also positive, tying it to motivation: Disadvantages of age can be demolished by motivation. Participant 15 quotes her observations: I have witnessed people over 60 learning very well. Participant 6, however, disagrees: Young ones tend to learn faster than older ones. Participant 9 is also not so sure: I think there is a critical age to learn a language as a native. Participant 32: Age is very important because if you start young age it will be easier in older ages. Participant 41 is also on the “younger is better” side: Young learners are more advantageous because of their brain’s elasticity. Affect: Opinions were also divided (in fact, significantly so, see above) on the issue of affect. Perhaps because of their in-class experience of collaboration, friendship, and interaction, the practising teachers were more strongly in agreement (median=5) than the pre-service teachers (median=4). Comments included: Participant 12: Friendship of classmates can really affect the learning process. Background 203 Participant 36: It will be better to learn if the learners have positive emotions about the learning. Participant 39: The students must be confident in the learning environment otherwise they won’t be willing to participate in our lessons. 11. Culture/ethnicity/nationality/race: This item was given only a neutral rating (median=3) by both practising and pre-service teachers, suggesting that it is not considered a very important issue in language learning: Participant 2 makes a very reasonable point when she says: I cannot categorize which nationality learns better—it’s not fair—there is always good and bad examples. Participant 13 makes the practical suggestion: While teaching we should be careful for not offending those who have different ethnicities. Participant 38 brings it back to motivation: Language learning is not about your culture. It is about you want or not. ◄ At the bottom of the questionnaire form, participants were given space to add any comments of their own about individual factors they considered important. By no means all of them did this, but among the comments which were made: Participant 3: Need and motivation are the most basic factors which affect language learning directly I think Participant 5: Environment (where you’re learning, who you are with) Participant 7: Why they are learning (e.g. to meet girls) Participant 16: A student’s mental and physical conditions are also important as an influence on language learning Participant 40: Support from families. ◄ Contextual Factors ◄ As Participant 5 above aptly notes, environment (including where and with whom) can, indeed be an important factor which can exert a strong influence on how successful language learning may or may not be. Because of this, although individual differences may be important in the development of language, it is also important to remember that this individual exists and operates within a sociocultural and ecological environment which will, in turn, provide both affordances and constraints regarding how this development can proceed. ◄ In order to provide triangulation and to cross-check the degree to which responses might vary according to context, the study reported above was replicated among a different group of pre-service teachers (N = 66), of whom 42 were female and 24 were male (that is, about one third were male). The study was conducted at another Turkish university in a smaller city, using the same instrument. The results of this study are shown below in Table 13.2, where the first group of pre-service teachers (N = 29) are compared with the second group (N = 66). ◄ 204 13 A Holistic View 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 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Individual difference Motivation Aptitude Strategies Gender Positive beliefs Autonomy Personality Style Age Affect/emotions, feelings Culture/nationality/ethnicity/race PST (1) (N = 29) 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 PST (2) (N = 66) 5 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 As we can see from Table 13.2, most of the ratings are the same for both groups, although the second group seems to consider strategies as less important than the first group. Interestingly, however, there is quite a large difference in their perceptions of the importance of gender, regarding which group 1 is neutral (median=3), whereas group 2 strongly disagrees (median=1), a difference which proved to be significant (p = 0.002), accounting for 10.13% of the variance (according to Yanati’s effect size formula, online), which Plonsky and Oswald (2014) would consider small. ◄ This difference might suggest an interesting direction for further research into an area where there is little or no current literature: the question of inter-group differences. Intuitively, the two groups involved in this study might not be expected to be very different. Both were groups of pre-service teachers studying at universities in urban contexts. In both studies, the females outnumbered the males, although the proportions were slightly different (approximately 1/4 in the first study, 1/3 in the second). So, we might wonder what the reason could be for such a noticeable intergroup difference in perception regarding the role of gender in language learning. Unfortunately, it was not possible to follow up this question in the case of the participants in this study, but it might provide an interesting direction for future researchers. ◄ Other Contributing Factors: Goal Orientation Participant 7 in the first study reported above brings up another important potential factor: goal orientation. It is possible, of course, to include goal-orientation under the umbrella of motivation (dealt with as an individual difference in Chap. 12), but it is also possible to consider learning goal as an external target determined according to other individual differences as well as ecological and sociocultural context. ◄ Discussion 205 In the case of the studies reported above, the students were ostensibly studying to be language teachers. The example provided by Participant 7, however, suggests that this might not be the main or only goal at which the students were aiming. Some of them might be more interested in meeting girlfriends or boyfriends or future wives or husbands. Some might plan to use their qualification to travel or for other academic or vocational purposes (as Griffiths, 2018, notes). In short, goal-orientation might, itself, be a complex facet of an individual, dynamic and prone to change, sometimes at quite short notice, as individuals’ visions of their own future selves develop. ◄ Discussion As we can see from the results of the study of practising and pre-service teachers and the follow-up study involving a different group of pre-service teachers reported above, there is actually very broad consensus that, for language learning, individual differences are important, especially motivation (Item 1), to which all groups give a median rating of 5 (=strongly agree). This consensus also applies across all groups for the importance of personality (Item 7) and style (Item 8), which are rated 4=agree by all groups, and culture (Item 11, rating=3=neutral by all groups). Beliefs (Item 5), autonomy (Item 6) and affect (Item 10) are rated more highly by the practising teachers (rating=5=strongly agree) than by both groups of pre-service teachers (rating=4=agree), but aptitude (Item 2, rating=3.5) and age (Item 9, rating=3) are rated less highly by the experienced teachers versus the pre-service teachers. For the remaining items, the first group of pre-service teachers were more strongly in agreement about the importance of strategies (Item 3) than the other groups, and the second group of pre-service teachers were more strongly in disagreement about the importance of gender (Item 4, rating=1=strongly disagree). The comments added some interesting extra qualitative insights to the quantitative results. As noted above, agreement with the importance of motivation was strong, especially for goal-setting and retention. The importance of affect was also rated highly by experienced teachers, with the development of relationships and confidence being mentioned as contributing factors. The experienced teachers were stronger than the pre-service teachers in their agreement for the level of importance ascribed to positive beliefs (which was linked to motivation), and autonomy (which was linked to strategies). The pre-service teachers, however, were stronger in their ratings for strategies (though questions were raised about whether they were the teacher’s or the learner’s responsibility) and age (although some adopted a can-do approach whereas others maintained the more traditional “younger is better” position). Although personality and style were rated equally across both the practising and pre-service teachers, some comments pointed out the importance of matching teacher and student styles. A similar consensus was displayed across groups for cul ture/nationality/ethnicity/race (the importance of not causing offence was mentioned here). Although gender was generally considered “doesn’t matter”, some 206 13 A Holistic View differences were suggested, such as that females are more “organized and planned”, whereas males are more “logical”. Although the questionnaire used in these studies did not actually ask directly about context, it is interesting that several of the respondents took the initiative to mention this in the comments space at the end of the form. Two of the respondents made comments about the importance of the physical environment, while another 2 comments related to sociocultural context (who you are with and families). The fact that these comments were not overtly elicited perhaps emphasizes the fact that they must, therefore, be salient factors in the respondents’ minds. Implications for Teaching and Learning This dynamic complexity is, of course, no news to teachers, who must deal with such variability on a day-by-day, if not minute-by-minute, basis. Implications of this view include the following: 1. Learners are complex mixtures of multifaceted individual differences, and learner individuality needs to be recognized and respected. 2. Learner are situated individuals, and the various ecological and sociocultural contexts with which they interact (e.g. where they are studying/working, where they live, who they live/work with, etc.) will have an effect on their motivation, their affective reactions, and their willingness to invest in learning. 3. Learners are goal-oriented, and the goals at which they are aiming will be at least partly determined by their individual identities, backgrounds and situations. 4. During the learning process, learner identity is evolving, and room needs to be allowed for this dynamic process. 5. Educators and education policies need to be flexible to make allowances as much as may be possible or feasible for the dynamic development of situated, goaloriented individual learners. Questions for Further Research The studies reported in this chapter suggest numerous other research possibilities: • The studies were small-scale. They could be treated as a pilot for a larger-scale study involving many more participants. • It was conducted in a limited environment (educational institutions in urban settings in Turkey). It would be interesting to know if the findings are generalizable beyond this context. • The participants were all language teachers or pre-service teachers. Are similar results obtained from participants with a different goal-orientation? • The study used a questionnaire. Further validation might be needed in order to refine the instrument. Conclusion 207 • Different methodologies (e.g. experiments, interviews, observations, think-aloud protocols, case studies) might add interesting extra insights. • A longitudinal research design could provide interesting information about the dynamics of individual difference development (e.g. motivation, beliefs, strategies, etc). • Other individual differences might be included. These might include the importance of language, religion, family influence, education, job, and so on. If assistance with research methods is required, a book such as Dikilitaş and Griffiths (2017) or McKinley and Rose (2020) could be very useful. Conclusion Overall, the results of the study reported in this chapter suggest that individual differences are important in language learning, but that any one individual learner variable (such as motivation) does not necessarily per se play a significant role in helping learners develop an adequate level of knowledge and competence in the target language; on the contrary, one learner variable depends holistically on another, and thus all variables form a unified and coherent system which is complex (that is, there are multiple variables) as well as dynamic (that is, the system and the elements within the system are in a constant state of flux) and situated (that is, the characteristics of the system and the interrelationships within the system vary according to the ecological environment and/or the contributing sociocultural relationships). The chapters of this book have each focused on a particular individual variable and attempted to examine it in some depth in an attempt to investigate its relationship to language learning, but ultimately it is important to consider all variables holistically in relation to each other. Contrary to what has been a common belief suggesting that adults cannot learn language after a certain period of time, or that children and adolescents learn faster and better (also known as the Critical Period Hypothesis), in the first chapter of the book it is argued that adults can also achieve native-like competence in a new language. In line with Complex Systems Theory, it is argued that when learners are motivated at an adequate level and exposed to the language as much as possible, they can become competent in the target language or even native-like regardless of their age. A salient characteristic which contributes to how an individual interacts with others is his/her sex/gender. However, although sex/gender is usually a very obvious personal attribute which might be expected to have a bearing on learning, most evidence seems to suggest that differences between the sexes/genders regarding language learning tend to be slight to non-existent, with no more difference according to sex/gender than between different individuals of the same sex/gender. One of the areas which interacts with sex/gender to influence language learning is that of race/ethnicity/nationality/culture. If we add language to this already complex mix, we can see that this particular individual difference has the potential to influence every aspect of this individual’s life, and this may well extend to language 208 13 A Holistic View learning, although given that all racial/ethnic/ national/cultural groups develop language, it would not seem reasonable to suggest that any one group is better at language than any other. The role of aptitude, or the degree to which some learners are naturally more capable than others, has been much debated over the years. Although aptitude is a characteristic which has been believed to be relatively stable, evidence from gifted individuals suggests that aptitude is not only complex (that is, it interacts with a vast number of other factors), but it is also dynamic, constantly changing, and, therefore, to some extent malleable. In particular, how much aptitude a learner may have may depend at least partly on context and the level of motivation. If we add personality to the mix, we find that our individual is beginning to look more and more complex. Personality has traditionally been regarded as a relatively stable individual characteristic which develops at a young age and remains reasonably constant throughout an individual’s life. More recent research, however, has tended to support the idea that personality may not be entirely set in stone, but that it may develop dynamically in accord with other changes in an individual’s life or environment. Personality is often believed to influence a learner’s preferred learning style. Although there does not appear to be any one-size-fits-all learning style that can lead to success for all individuals in all contexts, it does seem that the most successful learners are stylistically eclectic: in other words, rather than sticking rigidly to one set style, successful learners can adapt their style (style-stretch) to the needs of learning tasks and contexts. Learning style may well, in turn, contribute to a learner’s choice of strategies, or what a learner DOES to achieve a learning goal. Research has indicated that successful learners make frequent use of a large repertoire of strategies chosen to suit their contexts, their goals, and their own individual characteristics. Again in turn, strategies help to develop learner autonomy. Autonomy is generally understood to mean that the learners can take charge of their own learning and can freely decide and adopt the learning methods most suitable for themselves and their learning objectives. Autonomous learners are often believed to be more successful since they are more able to adapt to changing environments and to allow for other personal characteristics and circumstances. Beliefs are a very personal matter and may manifest themselves in a number of ways, some of which may affect the effectiveness of language learning efforts. Beliefs, however, are not a simple phenomenon: they are situated, complex, and dynamic, and interconnected with other variables such as ecological and sociocultural context and emotions. The role of affect (feelings or emotions) in language learning has been increasingly recognized in recent years. Although some learners deny their affective reactions, claiming that they are not influenced by their emotions, in reality, all humans are affected by their feelings, even though they may be unaware of it or they do not Conclusion 209 want to admit it. In the interests of successful language learning, it is important to mitigate the negative role of affect (such as anxiety or inhibitions), as well as to foster positive attitudes (such as empathy and motivation). Although motivation has traditionally been viewed in dichotomous terms (instrumental versus integrative or intrinsic versus extrinsic), according to contemporary views, motivation is seen as complex, dynamic and situated. Motivation is highly complex because it derives from multiple internal and external factors or sources. It is dynamic, because learners’ motivation is constantly changing, working in concert with the other factors such as learners’ own vision of their future selves, their volitional competence, and the willingness to invest. And it is context-dependent because it is influenced by the ecological environment in which learners are situated and the others with whom the learner interacts socioculturally. This last chapter has tried to take a holistic view of this very complex, dynamic, situated individual. Ultimately, this is actually a very daunting task, with multiple variables, which, simply for practical reasons, are often reduced to a manageable number for research purposes. We should remember, however, that teachers are faced every day with multiple complex, dynamic, situated individuals, so, although we may perhaps simplify the complexity for the sake of manageable research, we must not neglect to relate any findings back to the holistic reality if they are to have any real meaning. Questions to Consider 1. All of the groups of practising and pre-service teachers rated motivation most highly. Do you agree with this emphasis? 2. Why do you think that practising teachers might perceive aptitude as less important than the pre-service teachers perceive it to be (Table 13.1)? Can you suggest possible reasons for the other variations in their perceptions? Do you agree? 3. In Table 13.2, what do you suggest the noticeable difference in perception regarding the importance of gender might suggest about the two groups? 4. What kinds of “prejudices” do you think Participant 17 (in the comment on Item 5) might have in mind about beliefs? 5. As we can see from the participants’ comments on Item 9, there is disagreement over the issue of age in language learning. What do you think? 6. Do you agree with Participant 13 that it is important not to offend those from different cultural, national or ethnic backgrounds (Item 11)? How can we avoid this? 7. In the extra comments, what kinds of “needs” do you think Participant 3 had in mind? 8. Of the extra comments which were made, which ones do you think are important for effective language learning? 210 13 A Holistic View 9. Can you think of any other important individual differences which are not included here? 10. Do you think that the pre-service teachers in this study are realistic in the opinions they express? Do you think they will change with experience? If so, how? ► Follow-up Task Use the questionnaire used in this study (or an adapted version of it) to survey a teacher or group of teachers (either practising or pre-service) that you know. Compare their responses with each other or with your own ideas. ► Suggestions for Further Reading In addition to the references cited in text and in the reference list, readers might like to consider: G. Murray, G., Gao, X., & Lamb, T. (Eds.). (2011). Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. This book, edited by well-known experts in the field, contains chapters on several of the individual differences discussed in the current volume. Teng, M. F., & Lixun, W. (2020). Identity, motivation, and multilingual education in Asian contexts. Bloomsbury Publishing. This book includes chapters on multilingual identity, language learning, motivation and identity in Asian multilingual education contexts. Flynn, C. J. (2020). Adult minority language learning: Motivation, ıdentity and target variety. Multilingual Matters. This book presents a discussion of the role of attitude, motivation, and identity in the process of learning a minority language. References 211 Appendix: Individual Difference Factors Contributing to Successful Language Learning Dear participant: Could you please supply the following information for statistical purposes AGE: 19 or less 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50+ GENDER: MALE EXPERIENCE: FEMALE years Which of the following factors do you think are important for successful language learning? Please add a comment or example if you have one. Please use the back of the sheet if you need more space 5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree Factor Item 1 Motivation 2 Aptitude 3 Strategies 4 Gender 5 Beliefs 6 Autonomy/self-regulation 7 Personality 8 Style 9 Age 10 Affect/emotions/feelings 11 Culture/nationality/Ethnicity/race Any other factors you consider important Rating Comment I consent to these data being used for research and/or publication: YES NO References Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Dikilitaş, K., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Developing teacher autonomy through action research. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Griffiths, C. (2018). The strategy factor in successful language learning: The tornado effect (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (Eds.). (2020). The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. Oxon: Routledge. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912.