One of the questions we don’t often ask ourselves as language teachers is what we actually mean by success. We spend considerable time discussing attainment, progress, examination performance, linguistic accuracy and fluency, yet we rarely devote enough attention in my experience to the possibility that some of the most important outcomes of language learning may not be adequately captured by any of these indicators.

Two publications by Suzanne Graham (University of Reading) provide a useful starting point for reflecting on this issue: her chapter Aptitude or motivation: Which is the better predictor of successful language learning? (2022) and her article Self-efficacy and language learning – what it is and what it isn’t (2022).

Although neither publication is primarily concerned with redefining educational success, both raise questions which, in my view, have important implications for how we conceptualise achievement in the modern languages classroom.

What does Graham tell us?

One of the central messages emerging from Graham’s work is that successful language learning cannot be explained simply in terms of linguistic aptitude or motivation considered in isolation. Rather, achievement emerges from the interaction of several factors, including learners’ beliefs about their capabilities, their previous experiences, the opportunities they have to experience success and the educational environments in which learning takes place.

Of particular interest is Graham’s discussion of self-efficacy, which, drawing on Bandura’s social cognitive theory, refers to learners’ beliefs about their ability to perform specific tasks successfully. Importantly, self-efficacy is not synonymous with general confidence, self-esteem or motivation, although these constructs may interact.

A learner may achieve high examination grades while remaining convinced that they cannot cope with an unscripted conversation in the target language. Conversely, another learner whose linguistic performance is less impressive may nevertheless have developed sufficient self-efficacy to attempt communication, tolerate uncertainty, persevere through difficulties and take risks.

This distinction is particularly important because what learners can do and what they believe they can do are not necessarily the same thing.

It also reminds us that success in the language classroom is not simply a matter of accumulating linguistic knowledge. It involves developing the belief that such knowledge can be mobilised effectively when the situation demands it.

My take: success is multidimensional

What I find particularly valuable about Graham’s work is that it challenges us to think beyond simplistic accounts of achievement which attribute success predominantly to ability, effort or motivation, without sufficiently considering the reciprocal relationships between these variables and learners’ experiences.

However, I would extend the argument further: in my view, success in language learning should be understood not only in terms of linguistic attainment, but also in terms of the positive changes that learning brings about in the individual.

Consider, for example, a student who enters secondary school convinced that languages are not for them, perhaps because they have struggled academically in the past or because they have internalised the belief that some people simply do not possess a ‘language brain’. Three years later, that same student may still be performing below the class average, but they may have developed a genuine interest in other cultures, acquired the confidence to initiate basic conversations with speakers of another language and, crucially, begun to see themselves as someone capable of learning.

Has that student been successful? I would argue that they have, even if their examination results do not fully reflect the magnitude of that transformation. Why? because those achievements may be more consequential for their future lives than a grade 9 at French, Spanish or German GCSE.

Equally, a student who achieves an excellent GCSE grade but emerges from the experience disliking languages, fearing mistakes and determined never to study another language again presents us with a rather different picture of success, one which deserves considerably more critical scrutiny than it typically receives.

What does this mean for teaching and assessment?

None of this should be interpreted as an argument for lowering academic expectations, abandoning rigorous assessment or replacing linguistic competence with loosely defined notions of personal development. Accuracy, fluency, automaticity and the ability to comprehend and produce increasingly complex language remain fundamental educational goals, and any attempt to marginalise them would be misguided.

Indeed, there is a potential danger in celebrating confidence or enjoyment without ensuring that learners are actually acquiring the knowledge and skills required to communicate successfully. Confidence unsupported by competence is unlikely to remain sustainable when learners encounter genuine communicative challenges.

This is where I believe Graham’s discussion of self-efficacy becomes especially relevant to classroom practice.

If we want students to develop a robust belief in their ability to use another language, we must provide them with repeated, credible experiences of successful performance. In other words, we cannot simply tell learners that they are capable; we must design instruction that enables them to experience that capability for themselves.

From an instructed second language acquisition perspective, this means carefully sequencing learning, providing extensive modelling and scaffolded practice, gradually increasing task demands and creating opportunities for learners to recognise their own progress before expecting them to perform independently.

It also means that our assessment practices should not merely identify what students cannot yet do, but help them recognise what they can now accomplish that was previously beyond their reach.

The development of competence and the development of self-efficacy should therefore be mutually reinforcing educational objectives, rather than competing priorities.

A final reflection

After many years working with teachers and learners, I have become increasingly convinced that some of our greatest achievements as educators are not necessarily reflected in the highest examination grades or the most impressive displays of linguistic proficiency.

Sometimes, the student who moves from silence to participation, from avoidance to willingness, from fear of failure to a readiness to try, has travelled a greater educational distance than the student who progresses effortlessly from an already advantageous starting point.

This does not make linguistic achievement any less important. It simply reminds us that the educational value of language learning cannot be reduced to what is easiest to measure.

And perhaps one of the most meaningful questions we should ask ourselves at the end of a course is not merely how much language our students have acquired, but how their experience of learning another language has changed their perception of what they are capable of achieving.

Because, ultimately, a student who leaves our classroom believing that they can learn, communicate, persevere and engage with a world beyond their own linguistic and cultural boundaries may have gained something whose value extends far beyond any examination certificate.

References

Graham, S. (2022). Aptitude or motivation: Which is the better predictor of successful language learning? In E. Macaro & R. Woore (Eds.), Debates in Second Language Education (pp. 106–121). Routledge.

Graham, S. (2022). Self-efficacy and language learning – what it is and what it isn’t. The Language Learning Journal, 50(2), 186–207.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman.