Learners and Teachers: The Application of Psychology to Second Language Acquisition

Madeline Ehrman

Foreign Service Institute & National Foreign Language Center

Introduction
Multiple perspectives
The individual
Individual differences
Beyond the individual
In the classroom: A teacher's point of view
Conclusion

I am continually impressed with the degree to which teaching and learning are forms of applied psychology. Understanding the psychological background of learning and teaching second languages is thus at least as important as grasp of the linguistic dimension.

The study of L2 learners' oral and reading performance has received a great deal of attention in such areas in applied linguistics as conversation analysis, speech production analysis, oral testing research, classroom interaction analysis, and task-based learning research., Beyond linguistic variables, researchers have also examined such psychological determinants of learner achievement in speech performance as ‘individual difference variables', that is, various relatively stable learner characteristics like language aptitude, motivation, and personality features. These have been found to exert a pervasive influence on various learner behaviors, including L2 learning (see, for example, Arnold, 1999; Dörnyei, 1994; Ehrman, 1996); Leaver, 1998. Less attention has been given to interpersonal factors; the most comprehensive treatment of this dimension is Ehrman and Dörnyei’s (1998a) book, Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language Education,₁ on which much of this paper is based.₂

Psychology is both a branch of science and a set of approaches to 'healing.' As science, it attempts to accumulate and understand observations, experimental and natural. A psychologist seeks regularities of human behavior that can be described and predicted. The prediction can then be applied to large numbers of instances with a high probability of accuracy, leading to the ability to replicate findings, such as group behavior patterns. For individuals, the subject matter is regularities in cognition, affect, and personality. In the case of social psychology, the phenomena in question are the interactions of human beings with each other. The attempt to predict behavior in statistical, aggregate terms is referred to as 'nomothetic' investigation.

Clinical and counseling psychology represent efforts to understand individuals. These efforts are not necessarily scientific in the sense that they are expected to lead to prediction of behavior from one individual to another. Instead, they attempt first to understand and then to initiate changes in behavior. As ‘science,’ they represent ‘single participant’ investigations, a form of inquiry currently less popular than statistically normed large-group studies (Morgan and Morgan, 2001). The focal domain is the individual, who is understood to be unique. When the individual is a unique field of study, the approach is called `idiographic.'

Work on groups follows the same division. Efforts to understand how groups work--especially `small groups' of the sort found in classrooms and organizational work units--are part of social psychology. The practice and theory of group theory is an outgrowth of efforts to help individuals change and are thus in the clinical-counseling tradition. Needless to say, there is some overlap in these two streams. In order to help a person change, it is necessary to develop a kind of model of his or her behavior, which, in turn, leads to some ability to predict the behavior of individuals. Such models are based on observations--of what individuals say, of their attributions, and of their behavior. Some of these models have proved so useful that they become theories that are used in work with many individuals. This paper makes use of some of them.

In coming to a nomothetic understanding of individual and interpersonal processes, it is often helpful use metaphors and analogies in building hypotheses and interpreting observations. For instance, although social scientists can describe group development in terms that generalize across groups, they still rely on metaphors such as ‘fight-flight’ to account for the meanings of many of these processes. Furthermore, because interpersonal processes are interactions by individuals, prediction of their outcomes is complicated by idiographic factors.

Most clinical and counseling practitioners work with metaphors rather than statistically backed theories. A number of the psychological concepts addressed in this paper are not the product of observable phenomena that can be replicated under laboratory conditions. Instead, many of them are extended metaphors that theorists have developed to make sense of human behavior. Many come from the protracted process of constructing and construing life narratives during long-term psychotherapy. These metaphors have sufficient explanatory power for the behavior of individuals and groups that they have persisted as the bases of disciplines ranging from psychotherapy through literary criticism to organization development. They are often so powerful that they have become nearly axiomatic parts of Western culture, for example Sigmund Freud's ego, id, and superego. The foundation of constructive interventions in the functioning of individuals, small groups, and organizations, they serve as well in our efforts to understand the psychology of second language teaching and learning.

MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES

When histologists examine a single piece of tissue, they may look for a variety of different structures. Some structures require a purple stain; for others to be visible we might need a blue or yellow chemical,. The tissue is the same; the stains and the structures they show are different. Similarly, when we look at the `tissue' of human behavior, in order to see one kind of structure, we must use one `stain' or `lens' in the form of a theory or model. Others show up more clearly when we use a different theory or model as the stain or lens (For some time, I have also described this phenomenon using Korzybski’s statement ‘The map is not the territory.’ That is, the territory may be Washington DC, but there are various maps focusing on different aspects of the area: political boundaries, population density, physical contours, tourist attractions, metrorail lines, and so on.) . This is what is meant by looking at interpersonal phenomena from multiple perspectives.

One important domain of multiple perspectives is the way that interaction among people in the learning process takes place at several levels. The most common of these are:

• Within the individual (intrapersonal processes)
• Between two individuals (dyadic processes or dyadic relations)
• Among members of a group (group dynamics)
• Between groups (intergroup dynamics)

All of these levels are important to understanding what goes on in classrooms--and other learning settings, too. Inasmuch as groups are composed of individuals, intrapersonal processes are an important factor in all interpersonal processes; group dynamics can come to reflect psychology also describable in individual terms, e.g., dependency, fear, or rebellion. All four levels, intrapersonal, dyadic, group, and even intergroup, are at work in any class we may work with.

For example, Adam describes a classroom that was difficult for him:

This description of a demotivating class has references to three of these levels. At the individual level, Adam speaks of how he dislikes the class and the topics that came up in it. He describes ways the students used (as individuals) to `defend' themselves against unpleasant feelings. We saw a dyadic interaction when an inhibited student told Adam about her fear of speaking up; there were a series of dyadic interactions between the teacher and each of the students. Among the members of the group, we saw avoidance and a kind of negative cohesion fueled by dislike of the teacher.

Another category of multiple perspectives is the observer’s experience: Sometimes it is appropriate to deal with experience logically and analytically; at other times, a more free-floating experience of what is happening is needed. Both are legitimate perspectives and ways of knowing.

Betty, Charlie, Nancy, and Terence are members of a small language class in which interpersonal processes have gone awry. Nancy, an adult learner, is preparing for service overseas. Because some of her classmates will also work in the same city and office, it is important that they maintain some kind of ongoing relationship with each other. Nancy interacts extensively with three of the other students, Betty, Charlie, and Terence. Her learning is not going as well as she would like.

We can view these four learners as a problem group; as four individual students from the perspective of the teacher; as four individual students from the perspective of each of the students; a group-as-a-whole of four students who are interactive; as a group-as-a-whole of four students and a teacher; or even as a group-as-a-whole of four students and all the teachers who have worked with them. All the points of view are legitimate, and the teacher or other observer will need to be able to work with them.

Furthermore, each individual in the group of four carries with him or her all the other identifications and groups to which he or she belongs. For instance, Charlie is a military officer, with all that implies both to him and to his classmates and teachers. Betty and Nancy are diplomats, and Terence is a business executive. Not only do they bring these occupational identities with them, they also have gender, ethnic, and educational histories, at the very least.

The four-person class in 1.2 shows little cohesion. There is potential for subgrouping, with the two females (and foreign service officers) possibly forming a kind of alliance, and the male non-diplomats forming another. Perhaps Terence, for instance, may become a scapegoat.

In another individual or group, a different set of dynamics may be salient. In that case, it may be right to look at it in terms of, for instance, the key defense mechanisms in use. For yet another group, the role undertaken by the teacher and the effects of that role on the group may be the key approach. For instance, Adam's interview suggests that the teacher played an important part in making the classroom unsafe for risk-taking.

For any behavior, there are multiple functions. A joke may be a way of establishing connection with the other person, or it may represent hostility. It might serve as a defense against anxiety; it might also be a bid for group leadership, and so on. Because almost any act or behavior can be interpreted in multiple ways, and because most behaviors have meaning simultaneously at the various levels we have described (unconscious, preconscious, conscious; intrapersonal, dyadic, group, intergroup), theory considers behavior to be `overdetermined,' which is essentially a way of saying that it is multifunctional and interpretable at multiple levels and with multiple meanings.

For members of a group or dyad, multiple perspectives can be a source of conflict. If one subgroup takes a certain perspective and another subgroup operates out of a different frame of reference, both subgroups experience the same event in different ways. So, for instance, for the bird watcher, a cat is a predator that endangers the avian population, whereas for the cat owner, the cat is a much-valued companion. If maintained on an exclusive basis (only mine, not yours), these two points of view could trigger a nasty argument. If the proponents of the two perspectives can operate at the next level of abstraction (the cat and the bird are both members of nature; the cat has natural functions both as predator and as companion), perhaps the conflict can also be managed. Then the issue is one of figure and ground: for the bird watcher, the cat as predator is the figure in the foreground; for the cat owner, the cat as companion is in the foreground. In both cases, all the roles the cat can play are present as part of the overall context, but they are not of equal importance at all times.

It is a logical consequence of multiple perspectives that no one of the perspectives provides the entire picture, but that the more perspectives one can manage, either simultaneously or in oscillation, the more complete one's experience and understanding can be. In the case of the bird watcher and the cat owner, the ability to comprehend and take both perspectives as appropriate increases the options and enriches the experience available to both. In accordance with the above, case material can be understood from a number of points of view, all of which may be valid. In each instance, we can expect to find something useful.

THE INDIVIDUAL

The basic unit for applying psychological insights in second language acquisition is the individual, learner or teacher. Many of the processes between and among people are driven by what happens in the minds of the people involved. Thinking and feeling processes characteristic of individuals are echoed in interindividual and group interactions.

Everyone with whom we deal has a way of ‘filtering’ what is going on that is likely to differ from our own. We need to know, therefore, how to recognize and account for some of those ‘filters.’ For example, here is Bernard telling us about his view of group learning:

This statement tells us quite a lot about Bernard and the ‘filters’ he uses when he thinks about his relationships in his class. When Bernard talks about how his class is going, we know, for instance, from this statement that he does not like groups, that he has a strong preference--even need--to study alone, and finds too much fluidity in groupings uncomfortable. We might guess that Bernard experiences a threat to his personal boundaries from group interaction and uses avoidance and very clear group structure to help him manage the anxiety the group arouses in him. We can understand Bernard’s critique of a teacher for providing too little classroom structure, for instance, in the light of this understanding.

A working model, otherwise known as a theory, is a key to understanding individuals (and groups). Theories are like the stains of laboratory tissues or different lenses used by a photographer. They can help us understand the Bernards, Nancys, and so on that fill our classrooms; even more important, they can help us understand ourselves.

Theorists look at human behavior from different angles. Some important ‘maps’ of the psychological territory are the humanistic tradition (Rogers and Maslow), psychoanalysis, Jung’s theory of personality, ego boundaries, and perceptual and cognitive styles.

Much is made of the differences between humanistic and psychoanalytic psychology, and there are indeed important distinctions to be made. The humanistic tradition tends to focus on human potential, whereas psychoanalysis describes itself as based on ‘determinism’ in the sense that much behavior is unconsciously generated as a result of one’s past. In fact, once one applies either approach, they prove to be--like so many other concepts--different approaches for working with the same material.

A humanistic psychologist might say of Bernard, for instance, that he is not very comfortable in his world, that he lacks choices about how to make use of his classroom opportunities. Ideally, he could choose independently whether or not to work with others in his class. Instead, he can only work alone. Much of his experience appears to be at the security level of Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy of needs: Bernard is probably reacting to an experience of the group as dangerous and therefore mobilizing all his resources to avoid peril. No wonder he can’t remember much and has to go over it again when he is alone. To a humanistic psychologist, Bernard would seem far from self-actualization in this domain of his life.

To a psychoanalytic psychologist, Bernard may well be replaying (unconsciously) difficult experiences from his childhood, such as intrusions on his privacy or even on his thinking by parents or others, well meaning or not. He may well have had a great deal of friction with siblings that constantly affects his relations with others. He appears to cope with interpersonal anxiety by avoidance, rigidity, and sometimes even by turning his thinking off (what goes in comes right out again). His ‘defense mechanisms’ in this situation have become so powerful that they render him dysfunctional in a group learning setting.

Psychoanalytic thinking is probably the richest source of insight into human behavior available to us; in the next section I address one of its most productive constructs, especially for understanding classrooms: defense mechanisms. In addition, some of the models used in the study of individual differences described below, such as leveling and sharpening, have their origins in the ego psychology branch of psychoanalysis that sought to learn about and enhance affect-free ego functioning (Tyler, 1974), though they have since taken on a kind of independent life of their own.

The concept of defense mechanisms originated in Sigmund Freud’s theories (1894, 1923, 1926) and was systematized by his daughter, Anna Freud in her classic book, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense (1966). She introduces the construct as follows:

Anna Freud’s metaphor vividly gives an idea of the concept of the conflict underlying defensive behavior. Both the underlying conflict between wish and reality (or morality) and the anxiety they engender on the one hand and the development of the defenses on the other take place unconsciously. They are recognized only through such aftereffects as finding that something has been forgotten or discovering distortions in one’s perceptions.

Defense mechanisms can have both dysfunctional and adaptive effects. All of us have more or less threat, stress, and anxiety in our lives. According to Vaillant (1993) there are three ways of coping: social supports (getting help from others), cognitive coping strategies (e.g., rehearsal or planning), and the unconscious strategies of defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms are part of the lives of every one of us, no matter what our level of maturity, stability, or resilience.

Defense mechanisms, as unconscious processes originating from internal conflicts between wish and reality, entail some level of distortion of the individual’s perception of internal and external reality. Some defenses consist of massive distortion, e.g., denial. At the other extreme, anticipation of likely events represents much less alteration in perception. Possibly, human beings cannot tolerate unvarnished reality (whatever that may be); in any event, no one is subjected to it, because we all manage our personal realities through our constellations of defense mechanisms.

Defense mechanisms are closely linked with feelings and are therefore usually difficult to change by an act of cognition. ‘The ego creates involuntarily, and what it creates, it defends and regulates. The ego brings order out of chaotic feelings and yet at the same time distorts inner and outer reality. Paranoids cannot become altruists by an act of will. But, through therapy, maturation, and loving relationships people learn more mature styles of self-deception’ (Vaillant, 1993, p. 103). Table A shows the common properties of these ‘involuntary regulatory coping processes’ listed by Vaillant (1993, p. 17).

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

Table A: Fundamental Properties of Defense Mechanisms

• A creative synthesis of perceptions that are original, not just reflections of reality.
• Unconscious and the behavior that they generate is usually involuntary.
• Distort internal and external reality.
• Distort the relationship between feelings and ideas and between subject and object.
• More often healthy than unhealthy.
• Often appear unusual or surprising to everyone but the user.
• Over time, the kinds of defense used become more mature, leading to increased ‘health.’

Adapted from Vaillant, 1993, p. 17.

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

We need to distinguish between defense mechanisms and defensive behavior. Behavior can be observed and described. Defense mechanisms are constructs that are inferred from behavior. The constructs have acquired considerable validation through formal research (Cramer, 1991, Vaillant, 1992) and their utility in clinical practice, but it is still helpful to keep in mind that when we talk of repression, passive aggression, sublimation, and so on, we are usually making inferences and using a theory of psychic function and a set of metaphors, not necessarily describing tangible entities.

George Vaillant and his colleagues (Vaillant, 1977, 1993) have put together a taxonomy of defense mechanisms organized roughly in order of the degree to which they involve distortion of reality. The array of defense mechanisms is listed in Appendix A.₃

Research with several populations showed that these various categories of defense were indeed differentially characteristic of people who did well or not very well with their lives, not only with respect to salary but also in terms of life satisfaction. Individuals can be classified to a certain degree by the degree to which they make use of various levels of defense; one study using three very different samples (Vaillant & Vaillant, 1992) suggests that such styles are at least in part independent of environmental influence. Learning groups can be similarly characterized by the predominant defense mechanisms that are used in them; for instance, in Adam’s class, there appears to have been a great deal of projection and splitting.

Psychotic level defenses are very unusual in everyday life except under the special circumstances of dreams or with very young children. Most of us experience a variety of immature, neurotic, and mature defenses. These latter three categories are the ones we can usually expect to encounter in the classroom.

Observation and analysis of the predominant defenses used by individuals and within a class can give us a great deal of useful information. For an example at the individual level, Nancy’s description of her difficulties above says quite a lot about some of her defenses. She gives evidence suggesting several defense mechanisms at the immature level: dissociation (can’t concentrate), hypochondriasis (so upset I can’t study, I feel intimidated, I can’t be too aggressive about taking my turns to speak, I don’t want to study). Based on descriptions by her classmates, Nancy is also perceived as aggressive, so her description of Terence and Betty as aggressive and competitive may involve projection. If her classmates are acting as she describes, Terence and Betty are acting out (competitive and aggressive), and passive aggressive (just go on and on in non-stop monologues). Charlie may be using passive aggression (seems uncompetitive). Not only is Nancy having a hard time, so, apparently, is the class.

When Nancy ‘pulled herself together’ to see the interviewer, she made use of some of the neurotic and mature defenses. Nancy’s self description when she is not in language class as a high-functioning professional is probably not far off the mark. During the interview, she showed some of the qualities that contributed to her success: drive, a sense of humor, some empathy, willingness to look at herself and ability to use help from the interviewer. These observations suggest that, when she is not under the great stress of intensive language learning, Nancy uses fairly mature defenses like humor, suppression, anticipation, and altruism (empathy). Nancy is therefore probably undergoing a temporary regression: she is using a greater proportion of less mature defenses and has less access to mature ones than she would when under less psychic pressure. To the degree that the mix of defenses can be used to set up an individual typology (keeping in mind that everyone uses some of all three categories), Nancy probably would come out as more adaptive than her behavior in her present circumstances suggests.

Eva describes a relatively mature array of defense mechanisms:

Eva herself describes anticipation (I wrote out about 200 words), suppression (I wasn’t very anxious...), perhaps some altruism (I was really talking [interacting] with [the students, it was fun to see how everyone reacted, we went up to each other outside class]), sublimation (I could talk...about this topic), and humor (smiling, turned into laughter). Eva describes her own use of these adaptive defenses; she also indicates that their use was characteristic of others in the class as well.

Both Nancy and Eva use the ‘neurotic’ defenses, too, just as all of us do. For instance, Eva’s description of not feeling anxious could also be intellectualization (isolation of affect), if she was only thinking about content and leaving her feelings unconscious. In the context of her other behavior, it seems equally or even more likely that she in fact let herself have the feelings along with the idea of presenting in public, but she put the anxiety aside temporarily. That would be suppression. If Eva had started feeling anxious about getting to class on time that day, for instance, she might have been using displacement rather than suppression or intellectualization.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

It is a truism that no two individuals are alike. However, there are dimensions in which large enough numbers are similar to each other that observers note systematic variations in behaviors of various sorts. The study of systematic variation in human functioning is a specialty in psychology, ‘individual differences.’ This name is somewhat misleading, since the subfield is largely nomothetic, seeking generalizations across individuals.

A basic unit of individual differences is the trait, a characteristic that can be recognized across people. Traits may be physical, e.g., blonde hair, or behavioral, e.g., curiosity. Traits can be grouped into higher order categories. For instance, a cluster of such traits as gregariousness, surgency, oral expressiveness, and impulsiveness are sometimes grouped together as ‘extraversion.’ These higher order clusters can then be organized into systematic taxonomies--typologies--into which individuals can be placed.

Areas of human function addressed include perception, cognition, affective processes like motivation and anxiety, learning styles and strategies, personality, and interpersonal style, among others. Many of these difference categories affect learning (see Ehrman, 1996 Leaver, 1998, and Ehrman and Leaver, 1997 and forthcoming, for a thorough review of many important individual difference category in the context of second language learning). There is overlap among these categories: for instance, tolerance of ambiguity has a role to play as an element of personality; it is a key to effective learning, and it is very much related to flexible interpersonal behavior.

Humanistic and psychoanalytic psychology have a great deal to say about individual differences. For example, we have seen that characteristically used clusters of defense mechanisms can differ across individuals, with one person normally having a larger component of mature defenses in his or her mix of defenses than another, for example. Another representative of the psychodynamic tradition is Carl Jung, a former student of Sigmund Freud.

#Psychological Type#: Jung’s theory of personality, like Freud’s, addresses deep unconscious processes, many of them linked with important within-culture and cross-cultural entities. The portion of Jung’s theory that has proved especially useful in learning settings is his model of consciousness, which he called psychological type. According to this model, psychological activity can be described in terms of three bipolar dimensions: one attitude toward the world, extraversion-introversion (direction of energy flow), and two sets of mental function, sensing-intuition (for taking in data) and thinking-feeling (for coming to conclusions). An individual selects one from each of these pairs as the base for conscious functioning; the other member of each pair remains more a part of unconscious function (Jung, 1971). Myers and Briggs (Myers with Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley, 1985) added a fourth dimension, judging-perceiving, that relates to the amount of external structure preferred in one’s life.

The sensing-intuition scale has emerged as especially important to learning, because it indicates direction of interest and attention given to subject matter. Because this dimension has such an impact on interests, it can also make a difference to such interpersonal phenomena as initial attraction, building of sense of community, and desire to participate in activities together. The judging-perceiving scale relates to tolerance of ambiguity, which is vital to learning and which also can affect interpersonal tolerance. Extraversion-introversion is important to an individual’s readiness for and even need to make new acquaintances and to speed of integration into a group of initially unfamiliar people. Thinking-feeling has a considerable impact on the relative importance of task achievement and interpersonal harmony; thinking types give a certain priority to the former, and feeling types rate the latter highest of all. One can imagine how groups whose norms are set by people who prefer to function through feeling might differ from the those whose norms reflect the more task-oriented thinking types (Ehrman, 1996).

#Ego Boundaries#: Another important personality variable, from the world of ego psychology in the Freudian tradition, is that of ego boundaries and the closely related concept of tolerance of ambiguity. People vary in their fluidity of mental categories, especially those that relate to one’s identity and one’s relation with other people and other ways of perceiving the world₅ Too much such fluidity can be pathological; some psychological disorders involve an inability to maintain a stable sense of identity, for instance. Contrariwise, too much stability of identity and compartmentalization can result in very constricted lives with little adaptive flexibility. Most people vary within a range of normal function, which is what we describe here.₆

Flexible ego boundaries tend to be related to disinhibition, empathy, and the ability to take in another language and culture. Individuals vary in the amount of such openness. Rigidity in mental categories is clearly related to intolerance of ambiguity: if mental categories must be kept apart, there is likely to be little room for overlapping or apparently contradictory concepts in one place. In contrast, those who tolerate ambiguity are likely to have much less difficulty with experiencing themselves in a variety of ways and seeing the world through the eyes of other people (Ehrman, 1993, 1996, 1999; Hartmann, 1991).

Many people who tune out much of the world’s ambiguity lead well adapted, successful lives: many of them are the businessmen, lawyers, doctors, and plumbers of our society. These people, however, are likely to feel some resistance to learning that requires them to tolerate ambiguity, suspend identity boundaries, or regress in the service of the ego (e.g., through role playing and the like). Similarly, unless people with ‘thin’ ego boundaries accompany their flexibility with some element of internal structure, they can seem ‘flaky’ and out of touch. Though they may play freely with subject matter they are learning or engage readily with others, they may have difficulty focusing on problems, analytic strategies, or activating appropriate forethought. In their own way, they can be as rigid as their opposites, insisting that there are no blacks and whites, only shades of grey.

Models of perceptual and cognitive style originate in two domains of psychology. One is the study of perception, where attitude, motivation, or mental set were shown to affect perceptions. This is because perceptions are referred to existing schemata, and incongruities may stimulate a subliminal cognitive process to make a satisfactory match (Tyler, 1965). From another direction, efforts in the psychoanalytic community to understand ego functions led to study of patterns of perception and cognitive organization referred to as cognitive controls.

Perceptual research and study of cognitive controls have spawned a variety of typologies that differentiate typical ways of experiencing the world. For reasons of brevity, I give brief mention to only a few of the more important dimensions (see Tyler, 1965, for more detail). Among the most important are the following:

• Field independence: A continuum whose origin was in ability to perceive the vertical in a context of confusing visual cues; extended to include a concept very similar to flexibility of closure and then associated with personality characteristics having to do with greater ‘articulation’ and differentiation of experience in an impersonal way, whereas the field dependents are seen as having more social orientation (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981). Often referred to loosely as ‘global’ and ‘analytic.’
• Field sensitivity: A continuum relating to holistic processing and openness to information coming from the environment meant to offer a positive alternative to field independence that Ehrman used in her model and typology of field independence-field sensitivity (Ehrman, 1996, 1997; Ramírez & Castañeda, 1974,).
• Concrete and abstract processing: Concrete processing is dominated by immediate experiences, whereas abstract processing builds constructs from experience. Early ego psychologists indicate that abstractness is needed to shift reflectively from one aspect of a situation to another, to keep several aspects in mind at the same time, to both grasp wholes and analyze them into parts, to synthesize parts, to form hierarchic concepts, to plan ahead, envisage possibilities, and operate with symbols. (Goldstein & Sheerer, 1941, cited in Wolfe and Kolb, 1984).
• Impulsivity and reflectivity (conceptual tempo): The former is a quick response to a task, based on seeking reward for quick accomplishment; the latter is a slower, usually more careful response, seeking reward for avoiding error. Either can be accurate or inaccurate, though the term ‘impulsive’ is usually used for fast and inaccurate. Accuracy requires noticing and organizing relevant details; most learners need time to do this.
• Internal and external locus of control: tendency to attribute success and achievement (or failure) to one’s own efforts or to external forces, including chance. (Rotter, 1966).

Until relatively recently, these cognitive and perceptual styles had not been applied in a systematic way to second language learning. Ehrman and Leaver (Ehrman (in press), Ehrman and Leaver (1997 and forthcoming), Leaver, 1998, Leaver and Shekhtman (in press)) have organized ten cognitive styles under a second order construct that they call ‘synopsis’ and ‘ectasis’ (the adjectives are ‘synoptic’ and ‘ectenic’). These new terms were selected to avoid using any of the names of the constituent subscales (e.g., global or analytic) for the larger construct. The term ‘synopsis’ was chosen to represent the holistic, global nature of the approach; the term ‘ectasis’ is the Greek opposite of synopsis indicating something that is stretched out rather than condensed.

Experience with students in the light of the synopsis-ectasis model has brought out what may be the most important distinction between the two variants: an ectenic activity represents conscious control of what synopsis accomplishes preconsciously. For example, random processing (synoptic) automatically generates a path through learning material based on a series of immediate decisions based on the results of the preceding activity, usually without much conscious planning. On the other hand, sequential processing relies largely on externally provided sequences of activity that are followed as part of conscious self-direction.

Some of the ten subscales grouped under the synoptic-ectenic construct represent categories that have been confused in the past; the most notable of these is the so-called ‘global-analytic’ construct. In fact, ‘global’ and ‘analytic’ are not opposites (global is the opposite of particular (atomistic) processing, and analytic contrasts with synthetic). The mistaken ‘global-analytic’ opposition has been the source of a great deal of confusion in applying cognitive style constructs and doubtless a cause of equivocal results in research using these scales. Appendix B summarizes the subscales as Ehrman and Leaver (1997, forthcoming) conceptualize them for learning style purposes.

Needless to say, individual psychology is also deeply affected by affective processes, motivation, anxiety, self-efficacy high among them. A considerable body of work now exists both in the second language learning literature and general educational psychology about all of these affective factors. Motivation and anxiety in particular have received a great deal of attention in applied linguistics in the past 15-20 years; self-efficacy and attribution are receiving more notice (Bandura, 1993; Benson and Voller (1997); Ehrman, 1996, 2000).

Autonomous, self-regulated learning is essential for development of language proficiency both within and especially beyond the classroom, both for fluency and accuracy. I believe that teachers are responsible for helping students develop self-regulation, along with their language skills. The second language literature reflects an increasing awareness of this necessity, though attention to the issue began with the influence of Carl Rogers (1969, 1983). Stevick (1980) explores the implications of the balance between autonomy and control for language teachers and students. Pemberton et al. (1996) provide a relatively broad overview of the issue, especially among the European language teaching community. Ehrman (2000) examines factors affecting student ability to self regulate. Work by Benson and Voller (1997), Chamot and O’Malley (1994), Ehrman (1996), Macaro (1997), Oxford (1990), Rubin and Thompson (1994), van Lier (1996), Wenden (1991), and Wenden and Rubin (1987) address enabling students to access such learning strategies as word-learning, management of their feelings, and planning. Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998) and Macaro (1997) discuss the relationship between cooperative group experiences and learner autonomy. Ehrman (2000) addresses factors affecting learner self-regulation from the perspective of mainstream educational psychology. Coleman (1997) addresses cross-cultural implications of learner autonomy, which may be less valued or expected in some non-Western classrooms.

Learner autonomy and the learner self-regulation on which autonomy depends constitute an intersection of cognitive and affective factors in learning. Recent work is beginning to focus on this affective and cognitive interaction: Dickinson (1995) and Ushioda (1996) treat the role of motivation, and Aoki (1998) discusses the role of motivation and anxiety. Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998a) also address the impact of interpersonal and group phenomena on motivation, anxiety, self-efficacy, and self-regulation, including the role of the relationship between teacher and students in promoting or inhibiting student self-regulation and autonomy. Ehrman (1998) focuses in particular on unconscious communications between student and teacher, which are almost always affective in nature, and their effects on learner autonomy.

BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL

The L2 learning process is often hindered by a lack of understanding of how dysfunctional interactions between teachers and students and among the students with each other can divert energy and attention away from the learning task, and how any cognitive and affective learning can be substantially enhanced by adroit use of interpersonal and group dynamics. This observation is especially applicable to modern language teaching, where much of the development of the learners' communicative skills happens through participatory experience in meaningful, `life-like' communicative tasks, and the quality and quantity of the interaction that is necessary for efficient task involvement is largely a function of the relationship between the participants and the resulting psychological climate of the learning context (Ehrman and Dörnyei, 1998a). I am in full agreement with Stevick's (1980) claim that success in second language learning depends "less on materials, techniques and linguistic analyses, and more on what goes on inside and between the people in the classroom" (p. 4). Psychological aspects of second language acquisition apply to both `inside' and `between'.

Humanistic psychologist Will Schutz (1958, 1967) proposes that there are three basic interpersonal needs: inclusion, control, and affection, which underlie a typology he developed of interpersonal needs that is widely used in organizational settings to help people place themselves on a map of systematic human characteristics. Individuals vary in the amount of inclusion, control, and affection they usually want to give and receive. The well-known FIRO-B questionnaire (Schutz, 1948) measures these six variables. Another important motivation that can affect a person’s relationships with others is the need for achievement (McClelland, 1966/1984). One with high achievement need seeks situations where he or she can gain a sense of mastery over challenging but manageable goals, likes to control the outcomes (rather than relying on chance or external factors), and likes to have clear feedback on performance. Need for achievement is not the same as need for power: need for power has to do with control of others and others’ control of him or her, whereas need for achievement is about work performance.

The short statements by the two students Adam and Eva provided above illustrate classes in which the interpersonal dynamics work either toward a disappointing or a successful learning experience. A number of elements affect the motivation of the students and the effectiveness of these two classes. The cohesion of the classroom group is an important factor in the willingness of these two students to take risks and to invest themselves in the learning task. In Eva’s case, she felt encouraged to take speaking risks and enjoyed the company of her classmates both in and out of class. There was a sense of solidarity with the teacher, who was perceived to be on the side of the students. In contrast, in Adam’s class, students would not take even small risks in class, they did not much enjoy each other, and avoided class and each other. Classroom topics became 'contaminated' outside class, and the class was at odds with the teacher, who became an enemy.

Learning is frequently enhanced by good interpersonal relations or seriously hindered by dysfunctional interactions between teachers and students and among students with each other. Interpersonal friction can divert energy and attention away from the learning task. On the other hand, a teacher, teacher supervisor, trainer, or student who understands what is going on in a classroom among its inhabitants can substantially enhance learning effectiveness by adroit application of interpersonal and group dynamics.

Individual differences play a role in group dynamics: social relationships are subject to the effects of selective attention and processing of experience just like any other area of human activity. For example, people who are aware of details relate to others differently from people who perceive in terms of wholes and focus on functional relationships. From the world of cognitive style, Witkin and his colleagues include a set of interpersonal styles in their field independence theory: field independence can be associated with a kind of task-oriented, independent, impersonal approach to people, whereas field dependence (operationally defined as the absence of field independence) can be characterized by a social orientation and interpersonal skill (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981).

Groups and group processes are made up of individuals, and individuals (both students and teachers) are profoundly affected by interpersonal processes. Classroom groups are more than collections of individual learners. They achieve a stable existence and identifiable culture even as individual students come and go that impacts the learning experience of every student and the effectiveness of every teacher. Interpersonal processes both fuel much learning and can seriously disrupt it. They produce and enhance motivation to learn other languages and cultures and to interact with speakers of the language, and yet they can lead to massive anxiety about how one is perceived and accepted by others that can interfere greatly with achievement. Between individuals these processes can bring about cooperation that enhances the work of both parties, or they can result in friction and disaffection.

At the level of learning groups, a cohesive, well-functioning group can promote enhanced self-efficacy on the part of its members and effective cooperation that harnesses member diversity for the benefit of all. On the other hand, a poorly functioning group can result in apathy and inefficient learning at best and destructive psychological effects on the members and intense aversion to further learning at the worst. Between-group effects can be positive, with increased receptivity to the people and culture of the new language, or negative, in the form of rejection and aggravated negative stereotyping of the target language group. Interpersonal processes are thus very powerful in our classrooms.

There is much, much more to say about interpersonal dynamics in second language education, about the motivations and anxieties of students and teachers in groups, and about the reciprocal effects of members on each other. Unfortunately, this paper cannot explore them in the depth they deserve. For much more on this topic see Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998a) and the studies to which they refer.

IN THE CLASSROOM: A TEACHER’S POINT OF VIEW₇

Kim is an experienced and accomplished second language teacher. Committed to enabling her students to speak English fluently and accurately, she believes that her methodology is generally the best and most current, including communicative teaching methodology, maintaining a pleasant, supportive atmosphere in her classroom, and encouraging risk-taking. What has been causing her some worry, however, is that her students seem persistently inhibited about speaking in class. She describes herself as baffled.

Kim does not focus on the interpersonal dimension because she is not aware even of the relatively little research has been directed at the effect of interpersonal processes in second language learning. Important exceptions are the work of Curran (1972) and his associates on Counseling Learning, studies of the effects of (socially) situated learning (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991), social-constructivism (Williams & Burden, 1997) relating to interaction among teacher, student, and task, and recent studies of interactional variables in oral language interview situations.

In fact, speech situations are social contexts in which a number of interpersonal psychological processes are in action, at both conscious and unconscious levels (Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998a). These processes affect communications both in and out of the classroom (in this brief overview I have focused on classroom interactions). Group processes tend to be especially salient in classroom situations; unconscious transactions are found in *all* communicative transactions and have a particularly powerful effect on learning.

Two important interpersonal factors that affect learners, teachers and non-teacher interlocutors alike are

• Social factors such as the relationship between the participants, role and status distribution among them, state of group development in the classroom, and such environmental factors as the norm system in the setting;

• 'Deep psychological' factors reflecting such unconscious transactions as transference (replay of 'scripts' developed in one's family of origin), defense mechanisms at both individual and group levels, and the interplay of interpersonal attachment patterns between individuals.

Kim might do well to examine the effects of these covert processes between and among individuals on the persistent dysfluency of her students. One approach is to examine the effects of the current group dynamics on oral production. Perhaps her classrooms are affected by conflictual relationships in a classroom group that has not achieved cohesion, and thus the students feel unsafe in taking oral risks. Perhaps her school or the community it is in promote norms that result in student inhibition, such as deep-seated assumptions about teacher-centered methodologies. Possibly the school and its surrounding community are experiencing disruption that is reflected by defenses at the group level resulting in fighting or fleeing from learning.

Kim is seeing a persistent pattern of behavior over time. Because groups vary widely, it may be even more productive for Kim to examine whether there is a disconnect between what she says she wants from her students--autonomy, security, risk-taking, active L2 use--and what messages she may in fact be giving them without realizing it. Are there ways in which she is letting them know that she will feel useless or unimportant if she is not at the center of all classroom interactions? Ehrman (1998) and Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998a) describe a ''learning alliance' based on unconscious communications between teacher and students that permits students and teachers to take mutual risks and suspend ordinary power relationships. Part of this alliance is maintenance by the teacher of a 'frame' that promotes a sense of safety (stability of time and place, maintenance of appropriate interpersonal boundaries, reliability). Could Kim be permitting disruptions in the classroom that break the 'frame' of stability and trust so that her students will not take risks? What of Kim's own patterns of relationships with her family of origin might she be replaying in her interactions with her students that interferes with her effectiveness?

Teachers, no less than students, have personal styles, needs, fears, and motivations that make a difference to their effectiveness and the quality of their match with a given group of students. Their roles are complicated by the demands of their leadership functions, and their leadership functions are complicated—or enriched---by the importance of student-centered approaches. It is no wonder that teachers play a major role in the unconscious interactions—defensive or otherwise—that permeate their classrooms.

Second language teachers, teacher-trainers, and researchers may approach answers to the questions asked about Kim and her class by examining variables from the domain of individual difference psychology and the interpersonal worlds of social and deep psychology when seeking to solve learning problems, whether at the individual or class-group level. Non-linguistic variables have the potential to interfere profoundly with learning success, and at the same time, they have equal potential to enhance it.

Endnotes

NOTE 1: Substantial portions of this paper are drawn from Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998).

NOTE 2: Over recent decades, the literature on second language acquisition has increasingly made use of insights from mainstream psychology (e.g., McDonough, 1981; Williams & Burden, 1996). Concepts from the work of Carl Rogers had a substantial effect on one of the best-known innovative language teaching methods, Counseling Learning/Community Language Learning (Curran, 1972) and, more generally, on the student- centered teaching methodology that gained prominence since the last 1970s (e.g., Bailey and Nunan (1996); Moskowitz, 1978; Nunan 1989; cf. Stevick, 1990). Social psychology has influenced work on L2 anxiety (e.g., Horwitz & Young, 1991; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991) and language learning motivation (e.g., Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Clément, 1990, Gardner & Tremblay, 1994); during the last decade the latter work has been augmented by further insights from educational psychology in a series of `reform articles' (e.g., Dörnyei, 1994; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Findings from ego psychology (cognitive controls), study of perception (e.g., field independence), and the theories of Carl Jung (1971, psychological type) had considerable impact on efforts to define and describe individual differences and learning styles, many of which are treated, for example, in Ehrman (1996), Ehrman and Leaver (forthcoming), Leaver (1998), and Reid (1995, 1997). Educational and cognitive psychology plays an important role in the work that has been done on learning strategies (e.g., Chamot and O'Malley, 1994; Cohen, 1998; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford 1990; Wenden, 1991; Wenden & Rubin, 1987). Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998a) provide a thorough treatment of insights from more clinical branches of the field that have much to say about what happens in classrooms, both directly and through their applications to small group research.

NOTE 3: For a thorough understanding of these defense mechanisms and how they work, refer to one of the Vaillant references (1977, 1992, 1993); of these, the 1993 work is probably the most readable and up to date.

NOTE 4: What Jung (1971) meant by extraversion is not the same as the cluster of traits described above in section 2.4: instead, he meant that the external world is attractive to the extravert and at the same time energizes him or her. Some of the traits like gregariousness and so on are often characteristic of extraverts, but they are not extraversion.

NOTE 5: Consistent with humanistic theories, individuals can have a variety of sub-personalities that are related to different roles they play. Most have some amount of consistency across roles and a set of stable ‘selves’ based on firm beliefs, attitudes, and values. However, in certain social situations, they might well try out sharply differing approaches and have a variety of transient ‘selves’ (Schein, 1984). To this point of view, the psychoanalysts would probably add that the preferred mix of defense mechanisms would probably stay the same across many states of mind, thus providing another element of stability to personality when there is not too much press from life.

NOTE 6: In clinical contexts, very permeable ‘boundaries in the mind’ are considered a sign of dysfunction. A certain level of compartmentalization is needed to protect ego functions; when ability to make distinctions between various psychic states is impaired, individuals may have difficulty telling the difference between internal fantasy vs. external reality, self vs. others, various perceptions and memories, and states of consciousness. Very permeable boundaries often accompany considerable pathology related to reality testing. On the other hand, very thin ego boundaries can also be associated with great sensitivity and creativity (Levin, 1990; Hartmann, 1991). Among individuals within one or two standard deviations above Hartmann’s general population means on his ego boundary questionnaire (1991), Ehrman (1993, 1996; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995) has found certain advantages for communicative second language acquisition, as long as the student has the means to impose cognitive structure on his or her experience.

NOTE 7: This material is adapted from Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998b).

I. PSYCHOTIC DEFENSES: used to reorganize the perceptions of a nervous system that is immature, asleep, poisoned, or emotionally overwhelmed. Can bring about deep changes in perception of external reality and can result in action, not just imagination. Common in small children.

1. Delusional Projection: inner conflicts are externalized and given tangible reality. Reality testing is virtually given up. Often persecutory, little or no wish fulfillment. In ‘normal’ people, occurs in dream states.

2. Distortion: beliefs and convictions contrary to reality; reality is transformed to conform to one’s wishes. May include delusions of grandeur, hallucinations, replacement of unpleasant feelings by pleasant ones, such as delusional fusion with another. In a ‘normal’ child, imaginary friends.

3. Psychotic Denial: obliteration of external reality that would be apparent to others. A person with psychotic denial would actually walk into things; a person with neurotic denial (dissociation) would walk around them. An everyday example: in the throes of deep bereavement, a person might set a place at the table for the deceased.

II. IMMATURE DEFENSES: Expressed by behavior characteristic of late childhood and adolescence. Frequently stimulated by threats of too much intimacy or its loss. Often dysfunctional, socially undesirable to the onlooker. but not out of touch with reality. Except for dissociation, more common in childhood and adolescence than in middle age, except in cases of personality disorder.

1. Projection: Attribution of one’s own unacceptable feelings or thoughts to another person. Includes severe suspicion of others, injustice collecting, hypervigilance, and severe prejudice. User maintains the perception of connection with the object of the projection, though distorted. May include the object relations defenses of splitting, projective identification, and devaluation. A process of mutual identification may link subject and object.

2. Fantasy: Retreat into oneself and one’s imagination, to the exclusion of others and external experience. Associated with avoidance of intimacy with others. May involve ‘primitive idealization.’ In ‘normal life,’ daydreaming.

3. Hypochondriasis: Transformation of reproach of others first into self-reproach and then into body complaints (pain, illness, neurasthenia). ‘Guilt tripping.’ Vaillant includes introjection in this category (experience of the characteristics of an ambivalently perceived person within oneself, especially in the form of physical ailment).

4. Passive Aggression (Turning Against the Self): Indirect expression of hostility, anger, aggression against others through passivity, such as failures, procrastination, provocation, clowning to avoid competition. ‘Shooting oneself in the foot.’ In ‘normal’ behavior, often shows up in flirting.

5. Acting Out: Direct expression of an unconscious impulse or wish in order to avoid awareness of the associated feelings. Includes impulsive acts, temper tantrums, substance abuse, activity (in place of reflection or talking), and self-inflicted injury. In everyday life, we sometimes yield to impulses and act out in order to avoid tension resulting from deferral of expression.

6. Dissociation (Neurotic Denial): Replacement of painful thoughts and feelings by pleasant ones through separating one’s consciousness from one’s real experience, temporary modification of personal identity to avoid distress. May include ‘blackouts,’ brief disavowal of responsibility for one’s actions, counterphobia, dramatic acting, distraction, intoxication, temporary omnipotent feelings. Denial of internal (not external) reality. Can be employed consciously and often constructively, e.g., through meditation, self-hypnosis, method acting, etc.

III. NEUROTIC DEFENSES: Modify expression of impulses and wishes and private feelings; to the outsider may appear as individual eccentricities but not socially unacceptable. May be elicited by acute adult stress or neurotic disorder. Common in people of all ages.

1. Repression: Forgetting of a thought or experience, with an affective residue that may be expressed in symbolic behavior that indicates that repressed material is still there but unavailable to consciousness. Common in everyday life, in events like forgetting an important anniversary date.

2. Displacement: Redirection of feelings toward a thing or person in which one has less investment than that arousing the feelings. Includes practical jokes, hostility toward someone other than the cause of anger, hostile wit, phobias, and some prejudice. Ethnic jokes are an everyday example of displacement.

3. Intellectualization (Isolation of Affect): Thinking about matter connected with unconscious wishes in feeling-free, formal terms, leaving the feelings unconscious. Can include rationalization, isolation (thinking without feeling), ritual, undoing (saying or doing something to ‘take back’ an unacceptable wish), restitution, magical thinking, paying attention to the inanimate to avoid people, attending to external reality to avoid feelings, focusing on detail to avoid the whole, obsessions. A person diagnosed with a serious disease who talks about it ‘clinically’ is intellectualizing.

4. Reaction Formation: Conscious beliefs, feelings, and/or behavior that are the opposite of an unacceptable wish or impulse. Includes hating something (like ostentation) to which one is really attracted, liking a rival or unpleasant task, taking care of someone when one really wishes to be taken care of, identification with the aggressor. Unselfish behavior is often a reaction formation against one’s perception of his or her own greed.

IV: ‘MATURE’ DEFENSES: Mechanisms that integrate reality, feelings, and interpersonal relationships. To the outsider, seem to be ‘convenient virtues.’ Increasingly characteristic with maturation, beginning in adolescence.

1. Altruism: Service to others that is gratifying as well to the user. Can include benign reaction formation, philanthropy, empathy, well paid service to others, doing as one would be done by. Responds to real needs.

2. Sublimation: Indirect or weakened expression of impulses without adverse consequences and often with constructive outcomes. May include expression of aggression through games, hobbies, careers, or physical attraction through courtship. User receives some instinctual satisfaction.

3. Suppression: Ability to hold all components of a conflict in mind and postpone response, action, or worry. Involves a semiconscious decision to defer attention to a conscious impulse or conflict. Includes stoicism, finding silver linings, stiff upper lip, ‘counting to 10,’ etc.

4. Anticipation: Planning (with ideas and feelings) for future discomfort (internal or external). Includes anticipatory mourning, goal-directed worrying and planning, use of insight from psychotherapy.

5. Humor: Overt expression of feelings without discomfort or unpleasant effect on others. Includes games, playful regression, a sense of the ridiculous, bearing what is too painful to bear and focusing on it, treating it in some way as if it were a game. Affords pleasure to both user and observer.

Adapted from Vaillant, 1992, pp. 243-248, 1993, pp. 40-72.

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

• conscious processes: thoughts, feelings, fantasies, and wishes of which the individual is aware
• defense mechanism (psychoanalysis): an unconscious coping process to manage the anxiety generated by internal conflicts between wishes and impulses on the one hand and reality or superego processes on the other. Specific defense mechanisms are defined in Appendix X.
• dyadic process: conscious and unconscious communications and actions between two individuals
• ego (psychoanalysis): the collection of psychic process that both produce differentiated cognition about the individual’s reality and modulate the strong feelings and relatively primitive cognitions from the id and the superego. Much of the ego is conscious.
• group-as-a-whole: phenomena that are representative of a group as a single entity in which the members play roles rather than as a collection of members.
• group dynamics: conscious and unconscious communications and actions among at least three individuals
• idiographic: refers to study of each individual as a unique subject of investigation (opposite of nomothetic)
• interpersonal process: conscious and unconscious communications and actions between two at least two individuals or between at least two groups
• intergroup process: conscious and unconscious communications and actions between at least two groups
• intrapersonal process: : conscious and unconscious mental events within a given individual; often reflects internalized interpersonal processes
• nomothetic: refers to study of populations to seek generalizations (opposite: idiographic)
• preconscious processes (psychoanalysis): thoughts, feelings, wishes, fantasies, etc. that are not available to consciousness but are near enough to the 'surface' to be accessible through self-observation of behaviors like slips of the tongue, unintentional acts, dreams and daydreams, and associations among ideas and feelings
• psychic determinism (psychoanalysis): the assumption that the behavior of individuals and groups is determined not only by physical circumstances and conscious will, but also by unconscious processes and motivations.
• psychological type: Carl Jung’s model of consciousness, comprised of three bipolar dimensions: one attitude toward the world, extraversion-introversion, and two sets of mental function, sensing-intuition (for taking in data) and thinking-feeling (for coming to conclusions). Myers and Briggs added a fourth dimension, judging-perceiving, that relates to the amount of external structure preferred in one’s life.
• scapegoating (group dynamics): establishment of a group member as the repository of undesirable characteristics, leading to persecution and even extrusion of that member.
• unconscious processes: thoughts, feelings, fantasies and wishes of which the individual is unaware

References

Aoki, N. (1999). The role of affect in the development of learner autonomy. In Jane Arnold (Ed.), Affect in Language Learning (pp. 142-154). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge.

Arnold, Jane (Ed.) (1999). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

Bailey, K. M. & Nunan, D. (Eds.) (1996). Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Benson, P. & Voller, P. (Eds.) (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. Harlow, England: Longman.

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. New York: Addison Wesley.

Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex, UK: Longman.

Cramer, P. (1991). The development of defense mechanisms: Theory, research, and assessment. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Curran, C. A. (1972). Counseling learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.

Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23, 165-174.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284.

Ehrman, M. E. (1993). Ego boundaries revisited: Toward a model of personality and learning. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Strategic interaction and language acquisition: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 331-362). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.

Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties: Looking beneath the surface. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ehrman, M. E. (1997). Field independence, field dependence, and field sensitivity. In J. Reid (Ed.), Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom (62-70). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents Prentice Hall.

Ehrman, M. E. (1998b). The learning alliance: Conscious and unconscious aspects of the second language teacher's role. System 26(1), 93-106.

Ehrman, M. E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (68-86). New York: Cambridge.

Ehrman, M. E. (2000). Affect, cognition, and learner self-regulation in second language learning. In Olga Kagan and Benjamin Rifkin (Eds.), The learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures: Toward the 21st century (pp. 109-133). Bloomington, IN: Slavica.

Ehrman, M. E., and Betty L. L. (forthcoming). "Development of a profile approach to learning style diagnosis." Unpublished manuscript.

Ehrman, M. E. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998a). Interpersonal dynamics in second language education: The visible and invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ehrman, M. E.& Dörnyei, Z. (1998b). Interpersonal psychological processes in L2 interaction. IATEFL Issues 145, 14-15.

Ehrman, M. E. & Leaver, B. L.. (1997c) Sorting our global and analytic functions in second language learning. American Association for Applied Linguistics annual meeting, Orlando, FL, March 1997.

Ehrman, M. E. (in press). Psychology of the superior-distinguished threshold: A response. In B. L. Leaver and B. Shekhtman (Eds.) From superior to distinguished: Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal 79(1), 67-89.

Freud, A. (1937/1966). The ego and the mechanisms of defense (revised ed.). Madison, WI: International Universities Press. Revised from original by author, Cecil Baines, Trans. London: Hogarth.

Freud, S.d (1894). The neuro-psychoses of defense. Standard edition, 3, 45-61.

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. Standard edition, 19, 3-66.

Freud, S. (1926). Inhibitions, symptoms, and anxiety. Standard edition, 20, 77-174.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C., & Clément, R. (1990). Social psychological perspectives on second language acquisition. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 495-517). Chichester, England: John Wiley.

Gardner, R. C., & Tremblay, P. F. (1994a). On motivation, research agendas, and theoretical frameworks. Modern Language Journal, 78, 359-368.

Goldstein, K., and Scheerer, M. (1941). Abstract and concrete behavior: An experimental study with special tests. Psychological Monographs 53.

Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of personality. New York: Basic.

Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. (H. G. Baynes Trans., rev. R. F. Hull.) Reprinted 1971. Sir H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), Collected Works of C. G. Jung Vol. 6, Bollingen Series 20. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. (Original work published 1921) [CW 6]

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge.

Leaver, B. L. (1998). Teaching the whole class: Fifth Ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Leaver, B. L., & Shekhtman, B. (in press). Principles and practices in teaching superior language skills: Not just more of the same.. In B. Leaver and B. Shekhtman (Eds.). From superior to distinguished: Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Levin. R. (1990). Ego boundary impairment and thought disorder in frequent nightmare sufferers. Psychoanalytic Psychology 7(4), pp. 529-543.

Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning, and autonomy. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

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

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: D. Van Nostrand.

McClelland, D. C. (1984). That urge to achieve. In D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin, & J. M. McIntyre (Eds.), Organizational psychology: Readings on human behavior in organizations (4th ed.) (pp. 59-72). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reprinted from THINK Magazine, 1966. International Business Machines Corporation.

McDonough, S. H. (1981). Psychology in foreign language teaching. London: Allen & Unwin.

Morgan, D. L., & Morgan, R. K. (2001). Single-participant research design: Bringing science to managed care. American Psychologist 56(2), 119-127.

Moskowitz, G.. (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language classroom. Newbury House, 1978.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Myers, I. B., with Myers, P. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. New York: Cambridge.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. L. (1996). Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.

Oxford, R. L., and Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.

Pemberton, R., Li, E.S.L., Or, W.W.F., & Pierson, H.D. (1996). Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.

Ramírez III, M., & Castañeda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and education. New York: Academic.

Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Reid, J. M. (1997). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Rogers, Carl (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Rogers, Carl R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80's. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (whole no. 609), 1-28.

Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to be a more successful language learner: Toward learner autonomy. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Schmeck, R.. R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum.

Schein, E. H. (1984). The individual, the organization, and the career: A conceptual scheme. In D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin, & J. M. McIntyre (Eds.). Organizational psychology: Readings on human behavior in organizations (4th ed.) ( 87-103). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reprinted from Sloan School of Management, MIT, Working Paper No. 326-68, n.d..

Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Rhinehart.

Schutz, W. C. (1967). Joy: Expanding human awareness. New York: Grove Press.

Stevick, E.l W. (1980). Teaching languages: A way and ways. New York: Newbury House.

Stevick, E.l W. (1990). Humanism in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tyler, L. (1965). The psychology of human differences (3rd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner Autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik.

Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Boston: Little, Brown

Vaillant, G. E. (1993). The wisdom of the ego. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Vaillant, G. E., & Vaillant, C. O. (1992). Empirical evidence that defensive styles are independent of environmental influence. In George E. Vaillant (Ed.), Ego mechanisms of defense: A guide for clinicians and researchers (pp. 105-126). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman.

Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy: Planning and implementing learner training for language learners. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice/Hall.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. New York: Cambridge.

Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins: Field dependence and field independence. New York: International Universities.

Wolfe, D. M., & Kolb, D. A. (1984). Career development, personal growth, and experiential learning. In David A. Kolb, Irwin M. Rubin, & James M. McIntyre (Eds.), Organizational psychology: Readings on human behavior in organizations (4th ed.) pp. 124-152. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.