Individual L2 learners

Reading through Leki’s chapter on characteristics of L2 writers, I was struck by how often the result of some study was followed by a contradictory finding. I know that this chapter is basically a reference list identifying some of the findings in the field, meant to gather and present as much information as possible—and of course, some of those findings will contradict.

Reid’s article’s title states the apparent purpose of dividing learners into categories and naming how a person learns: we are “identifying the language needs.” As seen in Ferris’s article and Leki’s summative chapter, though, there are a whole lot of factors that may (or may not) influence and individual’s L2 abilities. Just looking at our own literacy histories, it is clear that each of us has had different motivations, different teaching and learning situations, and different results in our second language experiences. Although various characteristics are mentioned in Leki’s chapter, it surprised me that, put together, results or correlations for most were inconclusive. I also expected to see more influence between categories (as with the age-education level-time in US-L2 writing capability on pg. 116); it seems to me that certain categories (especially those dealing with the background and the relationship between the L1 and the L2) would influence many other categories in very evident ways. As far as what I have observed in my own ESL teaching, it’s very hard to categorize learners in simple divisions, or to find that one particular student will match the case study of another student.

I am interested to discuss, in the future, how L1 culture (especially in the cases of International students and Late-arriving resident students, according to Ferris’s terms) influences L2 learning—and looking at whether or how it depends on the L1. Education style may differ entirely between the L1 and the L2 culture. Reading through Leki’s chapter, I began to wonder if all of the researchers who are cited would agree that their findings are similar or different, and what each of their scales to determine “skilled” were.

I know that is often a problem in L2 studies; determining what is considered “fluent” or “proficient” is difficult. Skill in language is extremely complex and complicated to measure, even in L1 (how do we grade "good" writing in First-Year Composition classes?). So I was curious what we should take from results like this: “More skilled L2 writers attended more to content, referring more to audience, especially in terms of modifying content and presenting stronger or weaker opinions; their main objective was convincing the reader of their opinion” (100). Are those writers considered skilled because they did precisely those things? Or was their skill judged on a separate level and these details were noticed after deciding that they were highly skilled? I know we touched on this briefly in class last week, but whether or not those strategies produce “good writing” can also be a cultural matter.

I am also curious as to whether the type of learner (Reid’s “eye” and “ear” learners) can be connected to specific L1s or certain cultural contexts. How would we know? Would identifying a connection there affect the way I (or you) teach an ESL class?

And, even if certain connections can be identified between, say, cultural background, age, intrinsic motivation, and proficiency, would that really change the way I teach if I am standing in front a class of twenty students, each of whom has variations in context? And let's take the opposite stance: if research keeps coming up with contradictions and inconclusive results (that is, no correlation can be definitively found between many of these characteristics), then how should I choose the "best" way to teach in a group setting?