Psycholinguistic Factors in Second Language Acquisition: Foreign Language Teaching via Coaching

Abstract

This chapter conducts a comprehensive investigation into foreign language acquisition (FLA) using coaching methodologies, with a focus on psycholinguistic factors in second language acquisition (SLA). The study delves into the intricate interplay of psychological and linguistic elements influencing SLA, particularly language aptitude, anxiety, motivation, and self-regulated learning strategies. The research methodology details the design, participant selection, data collection, and analysis methods. Findings underscore the significance of these factors in SLA and their impact on learning outcomes. Implications for language teaching and curriculum development are highlighted, offering insights for educators. The chapter acknowledges limitations and suggests future research directions. This contributes to understanding the complex relationship between psycholinguistic factors and SLA, benefiting both educators and researchers in the field.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the exploration of psycholinguistic factors in the context of second language acquisition (SLA) has garnered heightened attention, reflecting a deepening interest in understanding the intricate processes that govern foreign language learning [1, 2, 3, 4]. As language educators and researchers strive to enhance pedagogical practices [5, 6], a profound comprehension of the psychological and linguistic dimensions that underlie successful language acquisition has become indispensable. It should be noted that from the learning perspective contemporary language learners, not limited to students only, have become far more challenged with life pace and time management in everyday routines, which expressly results in their need and feeling keen to utilize more cutting-edge technologies to enhance the learning outcome. Moreover, these do not merely cover advanced communications technologies and the learners’ flare for growing digital skills [7]; they are more and more in search of emotional rather than cognitive satisfaction [8, 9]; hence, coaching arises here at the right place and at the right time. To this part, the present book chapter embarks on a journey through this dynamic terrain, delving into the realm of psycholinguistic factors in second language (L2) acquisition, on the one hand, and specifically sharpening the focus on the need in applying coaching tools to meet the learning/teaching goals successfully [10], on the other.

To line it up, with the landscape of SLA that is fully multifaceted, as cognitive, emotional, and linguistic elements converge to shape learners’ experiences and outcomes [11, 12, 13], this work endeavors to (a) bridge theory and practice by exploring recent advancements in the field, thereby rendering an up-to-date perspective on the subject matter; (b) it offers the opportunity to engage with a nuanced synthesis of cutting-edge research and its application to real-world language teaching contexts. In addition, another element of SLA as suggested under the present research refers to (c) the acmeological one, where the value of learners’ desire for self-improvement and self-development while mastering a foreign language can hardly be overestimated. To this end, the acmeological approach to FLT and SLA involves the search and use of ways to activate and develop the potential of students, where the role of a foreign language instructor would rather be that of a moderator, mentor, and facilitator, thus, replacing a conventional teacher, and the learners’ motivation [14] among the other psycholinguistic factors comes to the front.

Therefore, amid the myriad psycholinguistic factors that interact in the SLA process and highly contribute to the depth of the research, it is the integration of coaching methodologies as a facilitative approach that has not been under research scrutiny yet. It is believed that this contemporary lens would serve as the conduit through which the entwined threads of certain psycholinguistic factors are examined. The result will be a clearer understanding of the interplay between psychological and linguistic variables for effective foreign language teaching (FLT) and SLA and how the appropriate usage of coaching methodologies may enhance impact on and value of learning outcomes.

2. Theoretical framework and conceptual underpinnings

Psycholinguistic factors in SLA have drawn attention of many scholars and are instrumental in elucidating the intricate interplay between psychological and linguistic variables [15, 16, 17, 18] and SLA theories are known to differentiate the three main ones: linguistic, psychological, and sociocultural. Next, according to Dayan Liu, Stephen Krashen is viewed as a pioneer in the field of SLA, and his “Monitor Model is seen as an innatist theory within the linguistic group”, despite the scholar’s critical review of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis [19]. The critics taken, Krashen’s pivotal role does not become lessened but on the contrary, it extends to catalyzing a transformative shift in pedagogical methodology; his contributions have been fundamental in steering education away from conventional rule-centric methods such as the grammar-translation approach and audiolingualism. Instead, Krashen championed a transition toward more meaning-centered paradigms, most notably exemplified by Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and as the prevailing approach today, CLT prioritizes effective communication, ushering in a dynamic evolution in language education practices [20, 21]. With Chomsky’s theories to follow, those of generative grammar and Universal Grammar, it is stressed how the foundational insights into the innate structures of language acquisition impact both linguistic theory and language teaching approaches [22].

More research has been done into interlanguage pragmatics and L2 writing, which contributes to understanding of language development in real-world contexts and effective writing instruction [23, 24], complexity theory in SLA that highlights the dynamic nature of language learning and its application to language teaching practices [25], Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis and the importance of consciously attending to language forms as a key element in language learning [26], Swain’s Output Hypothesis focused on the role of producing language (output) in language learning and its implications for language teaching methodologies [27, 28], bilingualism and cognitive benefits, as well as their implications for language learning strategies and cognitive development in multilingual contexts, on the one hand, and then how SLA theory and language teaching methodology informed communicative language teaching approaches and understanding of language learning processes [29, 30, 31, 32].

Shifting more from linguistic to psychological footages and moving closer to entwine psychology, social culture and modern coaching technologies [10], of utter value is Dweck’s work on growth mindset, especially in terms of language teaching, by promoting the idea that learners’ beliefs about their abilities can impact language learning outcomes [33], and from a didactic perspective, DeKeyser’s research on skill acquisition and explicit instruction provides insights into the role of explicit instruction in language learning, impacting instructional approaches in FLT and SLA [34, 35]. With the above in mind, it is sound to comment that understanding the phenomenal impact of psycholinguistic factors on learning outcome when supported via coaching methodology may help spotlight the benefits in FLT and increase the levels of SLA dynamics.

2.1 Relationship between psychology and linguistics in second language acquisition

The relationship between psychology and linguistics (SLA) is a pivotal area of inquiry that unveils the intricate interplay of cognitive processes and linguistic development. The key insights from recent years’ publications highlighting the dynamic symbiosis between psychological factors and linguistic constructs in shaping language learning outcomes (Figure 1), under which the following comes to matter: psycholinguistic factors shaping SLA, cognitive mechanisms underlying linguistic acquisition within poly- and multicultural frameworks, language processing and psychological realms, and psycholinguistic insights in FLT.

Figure 1.

Symbiosis between psychological factors and linguistic constructs for shaping language learning outcomes.

Following Figure 1 above, the interaction between psychological attributes and linguistic competence has always been of high interest to scholars, gaining more substantial attention [2, 36, 37]. Language aptitude, a psycholinguistic trait [38], influences learning efficiency; language anxiety, a psychological construct [39], impacts proficiency development; the motivational drive [3, 5, 14, 36] underscores the psychological foundation that propels SLA efforts.

Similarly, the cognitive aspect is underscored by the role of working memory [40] in syntactic processing [41]. The interactionist perspective [25, 32] highlight the symbiotic relation between cognitive processes and linguistic input. At the same time, the overlap between language processing and psychological realms is evident through psycholinguistic research [42] elucidating the cognitive mechanisms underlying language production. This intertwining is illuminated by research on lexical access [43] and sentence processing [44]. Finally, in FLT, the integration of psychological principles enhances pedagogy [36, 45]. In parallel, motivation and anxiety management strategies [12, 36, 39] optimize teaching methodologies, underscoring the symbiotic nature of psychological and linguistic factors.

Therefore, the nexus between psychology and linguistics in SLA is a dynamic domain that underscores the synergy between cognitive and linguistic elements, which integration results in insights that will inform pedagogical approaches and enrich the understanding of the complex processes that characterize language acquisition.

Further, such psycholinguistic factors as language aptitude and motivation, self-efficacy and memory strategies, learning styles and metacognition among the others are increasingly recognized as paramount in shaping language learning trajectories; they help find resonance in a range of recent empirical studies, thus lending credence to their significance in effective FLT [2, 3, 5, 6, 18]. To strengthen the role of and understanding the interplay between psychological and linguistic variables for effective language teaching, it is the coaching skills set that will enable both language instructors and learners to move the needle and reach the desired goals [7, 8, 9, 10, 34]. At large and in detail, psycholinguistic factors play a crucial role in both FLT and SLA as they encompass various cognitive, psychological, and linguistic elements that influence how individuals learn and use a new language, i.e., their learning strategies, which can be brought to attention and lit up in a coaching conversation with language learners and result in increased awareness and in future self-awareness with how to maintain and grow the capacity and desired skills.

2.2 Coaching methodologies in contemporary language teaching

The International Coach Federation (ICF) defines coaching as follows, “Coaching is partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential.” [45] and specifies the five core values of coaching, among which is integrity as demonstration of honesty, trustworthiness, and transparency in all coaching interactions, and at the same time, upholding professional ethical standards; along with excellence that stands for “committing to continuous improvement, professional development, and providing the highest quality coaching services”; collaboration which means partnering with clients—under the research, with language learners, “in a respectful and supportive manner, honoring their agenda and promoting self-discovery”; respect, i.e., “recognizing the unique value and dignity of each individual, fostering a safe and non-judgmental coaching space”; and empowerment as guiding language learners under the study context “to define and pursue their goals, making their own decisions and taking responsibility for their actions” [46].

From the above-stated and as discussed in leadership and coaching books, it is relevant to focus on the deliverables and for the purpose of the study to outline the key concepts on coaching methodologies in contemporary FLT and SLA (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Key concepts on coaching methodologies in Contemporary FLT and SLA.

Coaching as facilitation makes an integral part of SLA and FLT given that contemporary language teaching embraces coaching methodologies that shift from traditional instruction to facilitation. Educators no longer opt to perform the teaching roles, on the contrary, they guide learners to discover and apply language skills through interactive and learner-centered approaches [10, 36].

Learner empowerment arises as one of the coaching methodologies that strives to empower language learners to take ownership of their language learning journey. It means that it is learners, not their teachers and language instructors, who will actively set goals, reflect on progress, and make informed choices [10, 47].

When it comes to personalized learning, coaching methods prioritize language learners’ personalized learning paths tailored to individual needs, preferences, and learning styles. Learners engage in activities that resonate with their motivations and interests [36].

Goal setting and self-regulation as part of the acmeological perspective will contribute to language learners’ success; coaching by itself in language teaching emphasizes goal setting, metacognition, and self-regulation. Learners develop skills to monitor and adjust their learning strategies [33].

Of exceptional value are feedback and reflection as coaching technologies for the learning outcome in FLT and SLA. Coaching methodologies integrate timely feedback and encourage reflective practice. Learners assess their language performance, identify areas for improvement, and refine their strategies [32].

To summarize, the above coaching methodologies foster facilitation over traditional instruction, empowering learners to set personalized goals, self-regulate, and engage reflectively. These dynamic approaches prioritize learner agency, personalized learning paths, and strategic metacognition, enhancing language acquisition outcomes, which makes them inseparable with the psycholinguistic factors in SLA and FLT.

3. Research methodology

Drawing on recent scholarly endeavors, the research design started with the literature review that was followed by the mixed-methods approach. To ensure a comprehensive exploration of the key concepts pertaining to coaching methodologies in contemporary SLA and FLT, quantitative data were collected through surveys (questionnaires) administered to the student participants, assessing their perceptions of [coaching-based] language instruction. Qualitative data were gathered through in-depth interviews with the language educators, eliciting their professional perspectives on coaching methodologies. It helped identify trends and patterns in the teachers and language learners’ perceptions. Next, qualitative data from interviews were subjected to thematic analysis, where emerging themes were analyzed to extract nuanced insights from the language educators’ narratives. Rigorous measures were undertaken to ensure the integrity and validity of the insights derived.

The study lasted 2 years (spring semester of 2020/2021—Round 1 Data Collection, winter semester of 2021/2022—Round 2 Piloting, spring semester of 2021/2022—Round 3 Implementation, and winter semester of 2022/2023—Round 4 Finalization) and involved a diverse cohort of participants, comprising 198 undergraduate students in their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year of study and 44 language instructors—8 of which agreed to contribute to the experiment as FL moderators, mentors, and facilitators rather than FL teachers; they also were in charge of the Control and Experiment Groups 1–4, from the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv Humanitarian Pedagogical Academy, Donbas State Pedagogical University, and Luhansk National University named after Taras Shevchenko. In terms of geography, the experiment covered the north, center, and east of Ukraine. The students’ age varied between 19 and 25 (almost equally presenting male and female participants), while the teachers covered a bigger span of age difference, from 27 to 59 (female participants in prevailing majority). Additionally, out of the above-mentioned 8 four experienced language educators (FLTs) with expertise in coaching methodologies were purposefully selected to provide insights into the practical implementation of coaching in language teaching.

Control (x4) and Experiment (x4) Groups included from 20 to 24 participants each, with students from various geographic, linguistic, and social backgrounds.

Surveys were conducted in each round of the study in the form of questionnaires and interviews (with students) and panel discussions, brainstorming hours, and interviews (with FLTs). The questionnaires were e-circulated, and the participation was voluntary and anonymous. The first two mentioned activities with FLTs were open meetings where everybody could share concerns, challenges and underline the strengths in SLA/FLT. With the latter, interviews were held in private, allowing more room for FLTs’ reflection and self-reflection afterwards.

In Round 1 the study focused on data collection, including (a) literature review to follow the latest trends that may greatly influence SLA, and (b) questionnaires. In Round 2 Piloting, coaching dialog templates based on students’ answers and the data collected, processed, and analyzed, were designed, and circulated among the FLTs for acquaintance, discussion, and readiness to adopt for new classroom scenarios. To some FLTs, who felt less confident to assume the role of moderator and facilitator rather than the language instructor, professional trainings (growing a coaching mind-set) were offered. Two discussion panels—Understanding Self, and Understanding Others, also contributed to professional growth, increasing confidence of teachers, and building up trust among the teachers/students. Next, another questionnaire was set for students, after which the groups were formed, and the experiment started. In Round 3 Implementation, the coaching technology was fully introduced to see whether change in language aptitude, anxiety, motivation, and self-regulated learning strategies occurs with adoption of coaching conversations with students (and teachers, by the way) in class and after classes, how analysis of questionnaires and role of coaching tools such as goal-setting strategies, reflection, self-reflection, self-regulation, empowerment, etc. may influence academic performance and the final outcome. In the Implementation Round, of pivotal value were class observations along with the students’ survey to collect the feedback and their perception of coaching way of teaching by FLTs in SLA.

With the collection of data, ethical considerations were upheld, and informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring their voluntary participation and anonymity under the Ethics Code and GDPR policies.

4. Results and discussion

The literature review showcases a list of key psycholinguistic factors that are relevant to FLT and SLA and under the research findings can be grouped as follows (Figure 3): (a) language aptitude, language exposure and input, (b) language anxiety and anxiety reduction strategies, (c) motivation, self-efficacy and self-regulated learning, (d) attribution theory, (e) learning styles, memory strategies and metacognition, (f) linguistic background and cultural awareness, (g) age of acquisition, personality traits, cognitive style and individual differences, (h) social interactions and sociocultural factors, (i) feedback and corrective input, and (j) affective factors.

Figure 3.

Key psycholinguistic factors for SLA.

Under the research, one of the key psycholinguistic factors that was endorsed via coaching is language aptitude, language exposure and input. The findings of the experiment reveal that in an L2 classroom, an FLT would rather play a role of a moderator and facilitator, helping language learners unveil and grow their innate ability or capacity to learn a new language, i.e., language aptitude, which includes such factors as phonological memory, grammatical sensitivity, and the ability to analyze and understand linguistic patterns. The mentioned refers to Round 1 of the experiment, under which the data collected underpinned the advantages of FLA in previous learning settings and disadvantages that mainly referred to apprehension to start speaking a FL (see below).

The main source of information was the 3 questionnaires based on language learners’ previous experience, i.e., (1) Student Past Experience with FLA, (2) Student Questionnaire on FLA Strengths and Preferences, and (3) Student Questionnaire on Expected Language Learning Model. All the questionnaires opened with the same Section 1 Background Information, where students indicated their names (optional), age, gender (male, female, prefer not to say), major/field of study, and year of study. The other sections varied in number and the content focus.

Questionnaire 1 focused on 3 core sections, with the following headings, closed and open-end questions—Language Learning Experience, University Experience, and Future Improvements.

Language Learning Experience: 1. How long have you been learning English? 2. What motivated you to start learning English? 3. Have you previously learned any other foreign language(s)? If yes, which one(s)? 4. Which language learning methods or resources do you find most effective? Here the answers varied much, from traditional teaching/learning methods of grammar and vocabulary, reading books in original, textbooks, language courses, to innovative language apps, immersion, etc. 5. Do you have a preferred time of day for language learning? Students in the 3rd and 4th year of study mainly preferred early afternoon to morning, while sophomores enjoyed morning hours more; no one (100% responses) would fancy evening for language practice. 6. What do you enjoy most about learning English? 7. What aspects or techniques of learning English do you find most challenging? 8. Do you engage in extracurricular language activities? If yes, please specify. These were language clubs, tandem learning via apps, language exchange programs.

University Experience: 1. How has your experience learning English changed since starting at the university? 2. How satisfied are you with the English language courses offered by the university? 3. Do you find the teaching methods effective? Please explain. 4. How do you feel about the interaction with your English teachers/professors? 5. Has your view of English language acquisition changed since you began your studies at the university? 6. What aspects of the university’s language program would you like to see improved or changed?

At this stage of the study, there was little difference as to the learning experience from school, privately, and at university; the main comment mirrored a trend of FL teachers’ perception in Ukraine, which finds the existing teaching/learning models fully acceptable. Most responses emphasized the 3 teaching/learning styles: authoritarian, where traditional FLTs were often seen or expected to be authoritative and strict in their approach to teaching students, which the latter found at Round 1 of the experiment satisfying and even welcoming; students preferred to have a structured learning environment, as it disciplined them and made follow the rules if they wanted to achieve the result; focus on grammar: students perceived traditional FLTs to be right as placing significant emphasis on grammar rules, vocabulary lists, and rote memorization, and that resulted in preferred rule-based and textbook-driven learning techniques in their comments to questions above; and lack of interactivity: students saw FLTs relying on one-way communication, where the teacher lectures, and students listen and take notes; that did not make them sound happy about this style of FLA. These would change dramatically in Round 4 of the experiment, where value will be added to self-paced learning and more freedom for innovation and time constraints.

Future Improvements: 1. If you could change one thing about the way English is taught at the university, what would it be? 2. What suggestions do you have for making language courses more engaging and effective? 3. Do you think the university should offer more opportunities for real-life practice and immersion in the language? If so, how could this be achieved? 4. Any additional comments or suggestions about your language learning experience at the university?

The final section of the above questionnaire turned especially powerful, as the students did not expect to be taken out of their comfort zone, and it was the first round of the experiment. Their typical cognitive and behavioral patterns in the beginning spoke of the desire to be instructed and controlled, to be given assignments and advice on how to improve. However, specifically this part of Questionnaire 1 prepared them for more reflection and self-reflection in the coming two others. This is where the students started considering their personal preferences, accounting for natural abilities and already acquired skills, which could help them master the FL in a more engaging and fun way.

According to the students, it was also found that the amount and quality of exposure to the target language in authentic contexts strongly impacted language development (language exposure and input), fully supported in [20, 21, 22, 25].

Another psycholinguistic factor revealed in the answers was language anxiety, which related to the apprehension or fear experienced by them when using L2. The FLTs in interviews commented on this specific factor, drawing attention to high levels of students’ anxiety that hinder language acquisition and communication.

These issues were fully addressed in Rounds 2 Piloting and 3 Implementation, when with support of coaching tools (endorsing reflection, feedback, emotional regulation, stress resilience, etc.) anxiety reduction strategies for SLA were adopted. These were the techniques to reduce language anxiety, such as relaxation exercises, deep breathing, positive self-talk, and gradual exposure to the language. The result was improved academic performance and levels of satisfaction in Round 4 Finalization.

Questionnaire 2 unveiled another batch of insightful comments from the students. The main 4 sections investigated strengths of FLA according to students, their learning experience including that from an emotional perception perspective, their learning preferences, and plans for future learning (a perspective coaching approach vs. retrospective), in particular:

• Strengths in FLA:

  1. What do you consider your strengths in learning a foreign language? The answers varied, i.e., listening comprehension, speaking, writing, reading, with none significantly prevailing.

  2. What motivates you to learn a foreign language? Depending on the age criteria, the key focus was on travel (lower range), career opportunities (mid-range), and personal interest (higher range).

• Learning Experience:

  1. How did you initially start learning the foreign language you are studying at university? The answers were homogeneous, i.e., in school, self-study, language courses.

  2. Why did you choose this specific language for study? What interests you about it?

  3. What aspects of learning a foreign language do you enjoy the most? The interest related to communication and travel (83%), cultural exploration (12%), language structure (5%).

  4. Which learning method or approach has been most effective for you? The 73% indicated traditional classroom learning and only 27% referred to language apps.

  5. Do you have a favorite language learning tool? The responses followed the previous streamline—mainly textbooks, activity and workbooks, audio files from the books (played in class), listening to music (home and leisure), watching movies in original (home and friends), podcasts (home), language apps, etc.

  6. Why is it your favorite? The answers could be explained through behavioral patterns of established and rooted habits, only some students (32%) demonstrated their interest to innovate and act rather independently with a choice of learning tools.

• Learning Preferences:

  1. What is your preferred way of practicing listening skills in the foreign language? As commented earlier, students enlisted watching films (68%), listening to music (94%), and podcasts (13%).

  2. How do you like to practice speaking and conversation in the foreign language? The majority indicated language classes (91%) and speaking with native speakers (83%).

  3. What methods or techniques do you use for improving your reading skills in the foreign language? These were books (46%), social media (72%), online articles (3%).

  4. How do you practice writing in the foreign language? The students mainly referred to writing as part of their learning journey at university, meaning essays, and other written forms of assignments.

  5. Do you prefer a structured classroom environment or self-paced learning? Why? The answers to this question split into the halves. To achieve results and be in line with the planned outcome, the students (51%) commented that they needed teachers support on time management, planning the modules, and exercising control over the tasks. The other 49% underlined that they felt too stressed when teachers required specific delivery in the limited time, and complained of boredom and dissatisfaction with routines, where there is no room for creativity and innovation, meaning deviation from the curriculum.

• Future Learning:

  1. What are your goals in FLA? The answers roughly grouped under such categories as fluency (94%), passing language exams (11%), career prospects (74%).

  2. Are there specific language skills you would like to improve further? The answers were most likely based on the previous question, which after the processing and analyzing the data, was viewed as a leading question (under the coaching standards). Nevertheless, the responses broke into 83% for speaking fluency, 58% for business correspondence (mainly e-mails) in terms of writing skills, and only 44% for grammar.

  3. How can educational institutions better support your foreign language learning journey? That was a hard one. In addition to “I find it difficult to comment”, “I’m not an expert in this”, “They know better”, the suggest was providing students with more flexibility and freedom, which contradicted the expectation of high results that could not be possible without teachers’ control and supervision. They craved for freedom, and at the same time 96% of students found time management the biggest challenge.

  4. Any additional comments or suggestions related to your experience in learning a foreign language? The students wanted fun (75%), more entertaining classes (93%), less stress and tension (21%), which spoke of their everyday high exposure to stress and need in emotional balance as added value in communication.

These results underline the utter significance of motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning, acmeological component that makes part of these psycholinguistic factors. At this stage of the experiment, the findings speak of the students’ internal drive and desire to learn and use a new language. In parallel, they speak of somewhat weak learners’ belief in their own ability to successfully learn and use a new language independently. That said, it is only with Rounds 2 Piloting and 3 Implementation of the experiment, the students started demonstrating more confidence and readiness to improve whether with the FLTs or by themselves, which proved how the adoption of coaching tools for FLA as part of class and out-of-class communication impacted their performance and results. That underscores the statement that inasmuch positive self-efficacy can lead to greater engagement and achievement, ultimately it will lead to self-regulated learning, which means learners’ ability to set goals, plan, monitor progress, and adjust learning strategies based on their needs and performance.

Overall, the findings of the study in Round 4 Finalization show that the motivated and aware learners are more likely to engage in language activities and persist in their efforts. Furthermore, it is the attribution theory that sets out how learners attribute success or failure in language learning. Thus, it is found crucial for SLA and FLT to adopt the coaching methodologies given the credit that attributing success to effort and strategy use fosters a growth mindset (for both students and FLTs), while attributing failure to lack of ability can lead to decreased motivation.

In Rounds 2 and 3, by identifying and understanding the cognitive and behavioral patterns of language learners, both FLTs and learners could see what most contributed to students’ success individually or in a group. Then, it becomes evident why it is the turn of learning styles, memory strategies, and metacognition to come to the forefront. It was with Questionnaire 3, that questions helped FLTs understand the students’ learning styles and preferences. In particular, the survey aimed to discover the below:

• Current Learning Situation:

  1. Describe your current language learning situation. Are you learning in a formal classroom, online, or through self-study?

  2. How often do you engage in language learning activities?

• Benefits of Language Learning:

  1. What do you enjoy most about learning this language?

  2. How has learning this language enriched your life, or opened up new opportunities?

  3. What language learning tools or resources do you find most effective?

• Drawbacks and Challenges:

  1. What are the biggest challenges you face in your language learning journey?

  2. Are there any aspects of the language learning process that you find frustrating or difficult?

  3. How do you handle language-related setbacks or obstacles?

• Desired Changes and Improvements:

  1. If you could change one thing about your current language learning situation, what would it be?

  2. Are there specific areas where you believe your language learning experience could be improved?

  3. What kind of support or resources would help you progress in your language studies?

• Future Language Learning Goals:

  1. What are your future language learning goals or aspirations?

  2. Are there any specific language-related achievements you aim to accomplish?

• Additional Comments:

  Please share any additional comments or thoughts regarding your language learning experience.

As provided above, the questions of Questionnaire 3 may look similar or repetitive to those in the previously described questionnaires. Nevertheless, there is a huge difference in phrasing them. Such structure and formulation were intentionally designed to read the students’ answers again, but from a different angle. The coaching idea of empowerment and personalized learning, already at the stage of data collection, influenced the thinking patchwork and encouraged students to be more open-minded and becoming prepared for the successful outcome, via setting goals in advance, reflection, feedback, and facilitation. Of critical importance here was the focus on the students’ learning styles.

Learning styles are preferred ways of learning; these can be either visual, or auditory, or kinesthetic (Questionnaire 1). In Rounds 2 and 3, it was found that adapting teaching methods to match learners’ styles can enhance comprehension and bring more insights when the FLT wearing a moderator’s hat asks coaching questions accordingly. Memory strategies stand for techniques used to remember and retain new language material; mnemonics, visualization, and association were common memory strategies, which were identified as strengths of language learners instead of being advised for usage or adoption. Finally, metacognition had to be considered as it is learners’ awareness and control of their own cognitive processes. At large, metacognitive strategies involved planning, monitoring, and evaluating language learning tasks, which mirrored the typical coaching management cycle in effective communication.

In Round 4 Finalization, another insight from classroom observations, final questionnaires/surveys and FLTs’ interviews was the following: in SLA and FLT, one cannot neglect learners’ linguistic background and levels of their cultural awareness. Linguistic background is extremely important as it is the learners’ first language and its linguistic features can impact the acquisition of a new language, L2.

Cultural awareness is also significant, it is prerequisite for SLA as proper understanding of the cultural nuances and context associated with the new language; cultural awareness enhances language use and communication effectiveness, which can be exclusively strengthened with learner empowerment as a key coaching methodology in SLA and FLT.

Round 3 of the experiment outlined that another psycholinguistic set of factors was age of acquisition, personality traits, cognitive style, and individual differences. Age of acquisition helped the FLTs navigate and choose the right strategies for communication, as it is the age at which a learner is exposed to a new language. It is commonly believed that younger learners tend to acquire languages more easily and with native-like pronunciation. Cognitive style expressly links to age of acquisition and individual differences, it is precisely about the individual differences in how learners process information: for instance, field-independent learners tend to focus on details, while field-dependent learners see the bigger picture. Personality traits, especially such as extroversion or introversion, can influence how learners interact with the new language and culture (87% of students commented that misunderstanding is likely to take place mainly when their fellows, colleagues, friends are just different by nature, introvert vs. extravert). Individual differences in a whole speak of the psycholinguistic factors and similarly to cognitive abilities, personality traits, and learning styles contribute to individual variation in language learning.

In Round 3 of the experiment, the focus was laid on the new arrangement of communication in class. Every FL course started with students setting their personal and group goals, revising their strengths in SLA, and seeing to the benefits of the group. It helped them set self-regulating strategies for their learning journeys, encouraged feedback and reflection, that in the end of every class, module, term, and course was skillfully facilitated by the FLTs. Besides, it was the role of FLTs to ensure learner empowerment and see to the students’ progress with their personalized learning.

With feedback and reflection in Rounds 2, 3, and 4, social interaction and sociocultural factors underlined the significance of engaging in conversations and interactions in the target language as the interaction enhanced language acquisition through real-life communication, and the cultural and social context in which language learning took place. It was clearly transparent how cultural norms and societal expectations impacted language use and learning outcomes. Then, coaching as facilitation became a game-changer in arising the self-awareness and willingness to engage and act more proactively in diversified multicultural environments.

In Round 3, feedback and corrective input refer(red) to timely feedback from either party in FLT, in particular, − either FLTs or learner, and corrective input from FLTs or peers helped learners identify and correct language errors. Coaching with its focus on constant feedback and reflection—retrospective and perspective, endorsed the value in SLA and FLT.

Ultimately, according to the feedback collected in Round 4, the affective factors are emotional factors such as self-esteem, attitude toward the language and culture, and perceived social support play a role in language learning. The FLTs acknowledged in the end that raising learners’ awareness through coaching technologies led to visible results, and the changes for the desired effect were more frequently observed in the learning environment. It directly paired with goal setting and self-regulation that altogether enhanced quality in SLA and FLT. The self-assessment and self-evaluating tests by students brought a sharp increase in academic performance and self-satisfaction given the received results (from 57–96% in EGs as compared to 73–81% in CGs, accordingly).

These findings regarding psycholinguistic factors and coaching methodologies emphasize that everything is interconnected, although learning/teaching styles can vary among learners and language instructors. However, recognizing and addressing these factors via coaching can significantly impact the effectiveness of FLT and SLA.

The next part of the study connects the experiment results with the literature review on the discussed above, which can be seen as an endorsing tool to encourage FLTs to consider reviewing their methodological vision and interpretation for FLT/SLA.

4.1 Language aptitude: a catalyst for successful L2 learning

The exploration of language aptitude within the landscape of SLA reveals both commonalities and distinctions that contribute to successful L2 learning outcomes. Noteworthy scholars like Noam Chomsky and Stephen Krashen provide insightful vantage points for understanding the intricate interplay of language aptitude in language acquisition [20, 21, 22]. Chomsky’s groundbreaking theories, including generative grammar and Universal Grammar, propose an innate cognitive foundation for language learning, although later challenged by Michael Halliday and his followers (functional linguistics perspective), Adele Goldberg and Charles Fillmore (construction grammar), Stephen Pinker and Paul Smolensky (connectionist models), George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (cognitive Linguistics), Lev Vygotsky (sociocultural theory). Here, language aptitude emerges as a common denominator, acting as a bridge between Chomsky’s assertions and effective L2 learning. Those with higher language aptitude appear predisposed to recognizing linguistic patterns, aiding in intuitive comprehension.

In contrast, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, criticized by Liu [19], shifts the focus toward comprehensible input as a catalyst for language acquisition. Language aptitude, under this framework, acts as an enhancer. Individuals endowed with a robust language aptitude possess a heightened ability to glean meaning from input, enabling more seamless vocabulary acquisition and syntactic understanding [20, 21].

Diving deeper into the discourse, Diane Larsen-Freeman’s complexity theory adds an additional layer. It emphasizes that individuals with greater language aptitude might adeptly navigate not only linguistic intricacies but also the cognitive adaptability demanded in diverse language contexts [25].

The contrast emerges when considering the broader psycholinguistic landscape. Grigorenko and Sternberg’s work accentuates that language aptitude intertwines with motivation, memory capacity, and individual learning styles. This intricate interplay underscores the nuanced nature of L2 learning, where aptitude interacts with other cognitive factors.

To conclude, the comparative perspective of language aptitude underscores its multifaceted role in L2 learning. Chomsky’s innate predisposition aligns with Krashen’s input-driven paradigm, while Larsen-Freeman’s complexity theory broadens the scope. Simultaneously, Sternberg’s insights offer a contrasting dimension [38], emphasizing the interconnectedness of aptitude with motivation and memory. It is within these intersections and divergences that the true essence of language aptitude’s role in successful L2 learning emerges, providing a nuanced lens to the process of language acquisition.

4.2 Language anxiety: navigating emotional barriers

Within the realm of SLA, the phenomenon of language anxiety emerges as a distinctive yet interconnected thread that weaves through the journey of L2 learners. Earlier mentioned Chomsky and Krashen, while primarily focusing on linguistic aspects, indirectly contribute to the discourse by shedding light on the emotional facets of language learning [20, 21, 22]. The theories of generative grammar and Universal Grammar lay the foundation for understanding the cognitive complexities of language acquisition. However, these theories indirectly illuminate the emotional terrain as well. The innate structures shape not only linguistic proficiency but also the perception of challenges and anxieties that learners encounter. It means that in FLT and SLA, by acknowledging the cognitive intricacies, Chomsky’s theories provide a backdrop against which the emotional landscape of language anxiety gains perspective.

In a contrasting light, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis emphasizes the role of comprehensible input in language learning. Although not directly addressing emotional barriers, this perspective aligns with the notion of reducing anxiety-induced cognitive overload. To be borrowed and implemented in SLA and FLT is the possibility to create an environment of understandable and relatable input, under which language learners are better poised to navigate language anxiety [20, 21].

An additional layer to this exploration emerges through the lens of Elaine Tarone’s research in interlanguage pragmatics and second language writing. Her work extends beyond linguistic development to acknowledge the intricate interplay between language and identity. Language anxiety, often rooted in fears of miscommunication or judgment, interacts with learners’ self-perceptions and sense of belonging. Tarone’s insights contribute to the understanding of how emotional barriers intertwine with linguistic challenges [23]. In order to overcome these difficulties or challenges in FLT and SLA, it is advisory to consider the acmeological aspects and approaches to language education and endorse maximized learners’ potential via coaching reflection and self-reflection practices, by analyzing individual differences, identifying personalized learning paths, and attributing the learning process with appropriate goal setting and emotional self-regulation.

When contextualized within the broader framework of Carol Dweck’s growth mindset, learners’ beliefs about their abilities become integral to the discourse on language anxiety. Dweck’s work transcends disciplinary boundaries, resonating in language learning environments. A fixed mindset, where learners believe their language skills are static, may exacerbate language anxiety. In contrast, a growth mindset fosters resilience, allowing learners to perceive challenges as opportunities for growth [33], which is from beginning to end the integrity of coaching.

In sum, the comparative exploration of language anxiety reveals its intricate interplay with cognitive theories, linguistic development, and self-perception. Krashen and Chomsky [20, 21, 22] offer distinct insights that indirectly touch on the emotional dimension, while Tarone and Dweck broaden the narrative to incorporate identity and beliefs. It is within these intersections that the complex fabric of language anxiety is woven, navigating the emotional barriers that learners encounter on their path to L2 proficiency. To overcome the barriers, the knowledge and application of coaching tools may best serve the goals and objectives of FLT and SLA.

4.3 Motivation: fostering a positive learning drive

In the dynamic landscape of SLA and FLT, the undercurrent of motivation emerges as a powerful force, propelling learners toward proficiency. Eminent scholars have collectively delved into the intricate web of motivational factors that shape language learning journeys [2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 38]. Dornyei [2] explores the psychology of second language acquisition, unraveling the interplay of motivation and its role in shaping language learners’ success, others delve into the motivational dynamics that drive change, stability, and context in language learning, highlighting the evolving nature of motivation. Dewaele et al. [11] provide insights into classroom emotions, attitudes toward English, and teacher behavior, shedding light on how learners’ willingness to communicate is intricately connected to emotional experiences. Li and Han [12] contribute to the narrative by examining the predictive effects of enjoyment and boredom on learning outcomes, emphasizing the nuanced interplay between affective states and motivation. The extensive work of Pekrun and colleagues navigates the landscape of achievement emotions and academic performance, uncovering the reciprocal effects that emotions and motivation exert on each other, while Wang enriches the discussion by exploring how L2 enjoyment and academic motivation impact Chinese EFL students’ engagement, underlining the role of positive affect in driving learning participation [13, 14]. Taking that further, [37] contributes to the dialog on positive psychology perspectives in foreign language learning and teaching, recognizing the significance of motivation in creating an uplifting learning environment, and [38] illuminates the concept of intelligence, underscoring the multi-dimensional nature of motivation and its influence on cognitive processes.

The findings also underscore the importance of understanding motivation as a psychological factor and a coaching focus in SLA and FLT.

Following the survey results and comments of the language instructors, and as demonstrated above in Figure 4, it should be noted that learners’ motivation can be intrinsic (internally driven) or extrinsic (seeking external rewards). The study results reveal that intrinsic motivation tends to lead to more sustainable and effective language learning.

Figure 4.

Types of motivation of language learners in SLA.

Therefore, in this multifaceted narrative, motivation emerges as a beacon guiding learners through the intricacies of language acquisition. As scholars and researchers collectively emphasize, motivation fosters a positive learning drive. It transcends mere cognitive constructs, intertwining with emotions, attitudes, and social dynamics, shaping a holistic approach to language learning.

4.4 Self-regulated learning strategies: empowering learners

Recently, SLA and FLT have witnessed a paradigm shift as scholars delve into the empowerment of learners through self-regulated learning strategies. Scholars are exploring the multifaceted dimensions of self-regulation, unveiling its profound impact on language learners.

Dewaele et al. [11] delves into classroom emotions, a precursor to self-regulation, recognizing that learners’ emotional states significantly influence their ability to regulate their learning processes. Emotions, intertwined with motivation, serve as driving forces for learners to employ self-regulation strategies effectively [11, 15]. In Li and Han [12], the study further complements this research area, offering insights into the predictive effects of enjoyment and boredom on learning outcomes. These affective states play a critical role in the self-regulated learning process, as learners adjust their strategies based on their emotional experiences. As stated in Pekrun et al. [13], extensive research on achievement emotions underscores the reciprocal relationship between emotions and self-regulation. Learners who effectively manage their emotions are better equipped to engage in metacognitive processes, plan their learning strategies, and monitor their progress. This interplay shapes learners’ capacity to regulate their learning trajectories successfully.

Positive psychology perspectives add a layer to the discourse by emphasizing the role of positive emotions in self-regulation. Learners who experience positive emotions are more likely to engage in adaptive self-regulatory behaviors, fostering a proactive approach to language learning.

The implementation of coaching technologies and recognition of outstanding value of psycholinguistic factors in SLA may dramatically influence and increase academic performance, highlighting the significance of self-regulation in mediating the relationship between emotions and learning outcomes. Learners who harness self-regulation strategies effectively can manage emotional responses, enhancing their engagement and cognitive processing.

The research findings point to the pivotal role of self-regulated learning strategies in empowering language learners. Self-regulation integrates emotions, motivation, and cognitive processes, offering learners the tools to navigate the challenges of SLA autonomously. This empowerment aligns with contemporary pedagogical approaches, emphasizing learner agency and self-directed learning, thereby contributing to a holistic and effective language acquisition journey.

5. Empirical findings and analysis: coaching technologies applied

The findings demonstrate that the integration of coaching methodologies has sparked a paradigm shift, revolutionizing traditional language teaching approaches. The exploration of empirical findings and analysis concerning the application of coaching technologies in combination with the comprehensive awareness of the role of psycholinguistic factors for SLA and FLT adds a dynamic layer to this learning and teaching transformation. Investigation into the adoption of team coaching competencies for innovative language instruction in higher education paves the way for a comprehensive understanding of the role of coaching technologies. The study navigates the complex terrain of polylingual and polycultural dimensions, highlighting the potential of coaching technologies to transcend cultural and linguistic barriers, resonating with the psycholinguistic factors of language background and cultural awareness of language learners [10].

Another focus on positive psychology in FLT and SLA research enriches the discourse. This exploration underscores how coaching technologies can facilitate the infusion of positive psychological principles into language instruction, fostering a conducive environment for effective learning. Role of enjoyment and positive emotions in EFL fosters students’ academic motivation and engagement, bridges the gap between coaching technologies and affective states. This is to emphasize again how technology-mediated coaching interventions can cultivate a positive emotional climate, enhancing motivation and engagement in language learning.

This empirical exploration unveils the potential of coaching technologies in enhancing teacher efficacy, subsequently translating into enriched engagement levels among language learners. In addition, it collectively indicates that coaching technologies wield the potential to revolutionize language acquisition. From fostering positive psychological climates to transcending cultural divides and empowering both teachers and learners, coaching technologies emerge as catalysts for dynamic pedagogical shifts. The interplay between technology, coaching, and language learning serves as a promising avenue for innovative practices, promising enhanced engagement, motivation, and holistic language development.

The analysis of the empirical findings evidences that coaching technologies hold the promise to reshape language teaching methodologies. The transformative impact they exert aligns with the evolving needs of learners in a technology-driven world. These empirical insights invite educators and researchers to explore the synergistic possibilities of coaching technologies in cultivating effective language learning ecosystems, steering the SLA landscape toward a future marked by empowerment, engagement, and achievement.

6. Implications and limitations for language teaching and curriculum development

The core findings of this exploration shed light on the pivotal role played by psycholinguistic factors in shaping the efficacy of FLT and SLA within coaching paradigms. Through a synthesis of both empirical and theoretical perspectives, this work unveils the ways in which language aptitude, anxiety, motivation, and self-regulated learning strategies interact to influence learners’ language acquisition trajectories. The implications of these findings reverberate within the realm of language education, offering educators and practitioners actionable insights for curriculum design and instructional strategies.

However, this scholarly journey does not shy away from acknowledging its limitations. The research result candidly addresses potential biases, scope constraints, and methodological intricacies that may have influenced the outcomes. By embracing transparency in its approach, it strives to maintain a scholarly integrity that is integral to the academic discourse.

7. Conclusions

The analysis of the findings results to evidence the enhanced value of language learners’ learning outcomes with the application of coaching methodology for FLT. The student and educator surveys (questionnaires and interviews) facilitated a comprehensive understanding of coaching methodologies as an effective tool to enhance quality of FLA in- and outside the classroom. In addition, the psycholinguistic factors in SLA were presented at a different and much more distinguishable angle when paired with coaching.

As the study concludes, it simultaneously opens the doors to future research endeavors. The dynamic nature of SLA and FLT, coupled with the evolving landscape of coaching methodologies, beckons researchers to traverse uncharted territories, unravel novel dimensions, and continue unraveling the intricate tapestry of psycholinguistic factors in language acquisition.

In summation, the work amalgamates recent research insights and coaching frameworks to offer a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted interplay between psychology and linguistics within language learning contexts. It is believed that the exploration into the specifics of psycholinguistic factors in SLA and FLT through the lens of promoting the coaching mind-set in the educational environment is dynamic and informative, anchoring theory in practice and advancing the discourse in foreign language education.