How Talented Second-language Learners Regulate their Emotions and Cope with Stress
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.22.1.1Keywords:
talented learners, second-language learners, self-efficacy, emotional regulatory strategies, coping strategies, content analysis, Appraisal analysisAbstract
Most studies of talented learners focus on the nature of their accelerated cognitive abilities, and on structuring curricula to support them in achieving academically. Few studies of talented learners explore their emotional regulatory and coping strategies, as part of how they learn. Yet emotional regulation and coping strategies are an essential component of self-efficacy and self-regulation. Many talented learners are now also second-language learners. Programmers are among the most talented of 21st century learners. Programming requires linguistic proficiency, advanced quantitative reasoning, and multiple, complex forms of procedural reasoning. Mixed methods were used to explore how 34 talented programmers responded to a stressful second-language task. Data was analysed using one deductive and one emergent content coding frame, Appraisal analysis, and transitivity analysis. Results show that talented programmers handle stress by identifying and solving contextual problems. They realise positive subjective attitudes as evaluations of context, but frame negative emotions as interior experiences. As actors, they represent themselves as closely aligned with their team.
References
Aldao, A. (2013). The future of emotion regulation research: Capturing context. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459518
Araújo, L. S., Cruz, J. F. A., & Almeida, L. S. (2017). Achieving scientific excellence: An exploratory study of the role of emotional and motivational factors. High Ability Studies, 28(2), 249-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2016.1264293
Argamon, S., Bloom, K., Esuil, A. & Sebastiani, F. (2007). Automatically determining attitude type and force for sentiment analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd language and technology conference (LTC ’07), Poznan, PL, 369-373. http://nmis.isti.cnr.it/sebastiani/Publications/LTC07cExtended.pdf
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1(2), 164-180. https://doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Barfurth, M. A., Ritchie, K. C., Irving, J. A., & Shore, B. M. (2009). A metacognitive portrait of gifted learners. In Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 397-417). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_18
Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analysing texts and textual practices. Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609526
Berlingeri, M., Crepaldi, D., Roberti, R., Luzzatti, C. & Paulesu, E (2007). Brain areas underlying retrieval of nouns and verb: Grammatical class and task demand effects. www.boa.unimib.it/retrieve/handle/10281/4790/11927/Brain_areas_underlying_retrieval_of_nouns.pdf
Beynon, M. (2009) Constructivist computer science education reconstructed. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 128(8/2), 73–90, https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2009.08020073
Biber, D. (2006), Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116, http://doi.org/10.2016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
Biddick, M. (2009). Cluster grouping for the gifted and talented: It works. Apex, 15(4), 78-86, https://doi.org/10.21307/apex-2009-003
Biedroń, A., & Szczepaniak, A. (2009). The cognitive profile of a talented foreign language learner. A case study. Psychology of Language and Communication, 13(1), 53-71, https://doi:10.2478/v10057-009-0004-7
Boekarts, M. (2011) Emotions, emotional regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 408-425). Taylor & Francis.
Bonanno, G. & Burton, C. (2013) Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(6), 591-612, https://doi/abs/10/1177/1745691613504116
Bowers, J. (2002). Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(2), 183-224, https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317406696
Callahan, C. M., & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (Eds.) (2012). Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203848173
Carver, C. & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679-704. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352
Crepaldi, D., Berlingeri, M., Cattinelli, I., Borghese, N., Luzzatti, C. & Paulesu, E. (2013). Clustering the lexicon in the brain: A meta-analysis of the neurofunctional evidence on noun and verb functioning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(27 June 2013), 303-318, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00303
Dixon, F., & Moon, S. (2014). The handbook of secondary gifted education. Sourcebooks.
Dixon, R. & Aikhenvald, A, (Eds.). (2000). Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627750
Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, Language Identity, and the L2 Self. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293
Drisko, J. & Maschi, T, (2016). Content Analysis. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.001.0001
Elfenbein, H.A. & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(2) 203-235, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.203
Fontaine, J. R., Scherer, K. R., & Soriano, C. (Eds.). (2013). Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592746.001.0001
Franzosi, R. (Ed.) (2008). Content analysis. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446271308
Freiman, V. (2010). Mathematically gifted students in inclusive settings: Case of New Brunswick, Canada. In B. Sriraman & K. H. Lee (Eds.), Elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics. (pp. 161–172). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-439-3_11
Geake, J. G. (2009). The brain at school: Educational neuroscience in the classroom. McGraw Hill.
Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
George, D. (2013). Gifted education: Identification and provision. David Fulton Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315070155
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2010). They say/I say: The moves that matter in persuasive writing. Norton.
Gregersen, T. (2019). Aligning positive psychology with language learning motivation. In Lamb, M., Csizér, K., Henry, A., & Ryan, S. The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 621-640). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28380-3_30
Grover, S. & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. Hodder Education.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and Written Language. Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.
Hockett, J. A. (2009). Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to general education and gifted education quality indicators. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(3), 394-440. https://doi/abs/10.4219/jeg-2009-857
Hopkins, D. J., & King, G. (2010). A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00428.x
Hymer, B., & Michel, D. (2013). Gifted and talented learners: Creating a policy for inclusion. David Fulton Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315070094
Izard, C. (2013). Human Emotions. Springer.
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions with a focus on ‘I think’. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115
Kemmerer, D. & Gonzalez-Castillo, J. (2010). The two-level theory of verb meaning: An approach to integrating the semantics of action with the mirror-neuron system. Brain and language, 112(1), 54-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.09.010
Kemmerer, D., & Eggleston, A. (2012). Nouns and verbs in the brain: Implications of linguistic typology for cognitive neuroscience. Lingua, 120(12). 2686-2690, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.013
Kitillä, S. (2002). Remarks on the basic transitive sentence. Language Sciences, 24(2), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00043-7
Krippendorff, K., & Bock, M. A. (2009). The content analysis reader. Sage.
Kulikov, L., Malchukov, A. & Swart, P. (2006). Case valency and transitivity. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77
Kuppens, P., Van Mechelen, I., Smits, D. J. M., De Boeck, P., & Ceulemans, E. (2007). Individual differences in patterns of appraisal and anger experience. Cognition and Emotion, 21(4), 689–713. https://doi.org/1080/02699930600859219
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J. & Werner, L., (2011). Computational Thinking for Youth in Practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929902
Lee, S. Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Academically gifted students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212442568
Leikin, M., Paz-Baruch, N., & Leikin, R. (2013). Memory abilities in generally gifted and excelling-in-mathematics adolescents. Intelligence, 41(5), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013,07.018
Lewis, S. C., Zamith, R., & Hermida, A. (2013). Content Analysis in an Era of Big Data: A Hybrid Approach to Computational and Manual Methods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, (57)1, 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.761702
Linnenbrink, E. & Pintrich, P. (2010) The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(2) 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308223
Little, C. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 695-705. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21621
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of writing research. Guilford Press.
Malchukov, A. (2006). Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations. Case, valence and transitivity. In Kulikov, L, Malchukov, A. & deSwart, P. (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 392-357). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.21mal
Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation; Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
McCormick, K. M., & Plucker, J. A. (2013). Connecting student engagement to the academic and social needs of gifted and talented students. In Kim, K., Kaufman, J., Baer, J. & Sriraman, B. (Eds.), Creatively gifted students are not like other gifted students: Research, theory and practice. (pp. 121-135). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-149-8_9
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. & Scherer, K. (2013). Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5(2), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912468165
Moseley, R. & Pulvermüller, F. (2014). Nouns, verbs, objects, actions, and abstractions: Local fMRI activity indexes semantics, not lexical categories. Brain and Language, 13(2), 28-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.03.001
Næss, Ả. (2007). Prototypical Transitivity. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.72
O’Donnell, M. (2008). Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation. Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session (Companion Volume). https://doi.org/10.3115/1564144.1564148
Page, J. S. (2010). Challenges Faced by Gifted Learners in School and Beyond. Inquiries Journal, 2(11), 1-12. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=330
Paulhaus, D. & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. In Robins, R., Fraley, R. & Krueger, R. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224-239). Guildford Press.
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Perfetti, C., Yang, C. L., & Schmalhofer, F. (2008). Comprehension skill and word-to-text integration processes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 303-318. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1419
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psychoeducational practice. Routledge.
Polanyi, L. & Zaenen, A. (2006). Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications. Springer.
Read, J., & Carroll, J. (2010). Annotating expressions of Appraisal in English. Language Resources and Evaluation 46, 421-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-010-9135-7
Schunk, D. & Zimmerman, B. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010
Seth C. Lewis, Zamith, R. & Hermida, A. (2013). Content Analysis in an Era of Big Data: Hybrid Approach to Computational and Manual Methods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.761702
Shinzato, R. (2004). Some observations concerning mental verbs and speech act verbs. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(5), 861-882. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00002-X
Singer, F. M., Sheffield, L. J., Freiman, V., & Brandl, M. (2016). Research on and activities for mathematically gifted students. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39450-3
Snyder, L. (2014). Fluency with Information Technology: Skills, Concepts, & Capabilities. Pearson.
Stack, G. (2012). The language of possibility and existential possibility. The Modern Schoolman, 50(2), 159-182. https://doi.10.5840/schoolman19735026
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210383155
Stemler, S. (2015). Emerging trends in content analysis. In Scott, R. & Kosslyn, S. (Eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1-14). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0053
Sydserff, R. & Weetman, P. (2002). Developments in content analysis: A transitivity index and diction scores. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(4), 523-545. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210440586
Taboada, M., Brooke, J., Tofilovsky, M., Voll, K. & Stede, M. (2011). Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics, 1(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00049
Tedre, M. (2014). The Science of Computing: Shaping a Discipline. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17764
Tedre, M., & Denning, P. J. (2016, November). The long quest for computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 120-129). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999542
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. Hodder Education.
Webb, T., Miles, E. & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 775-808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Christina A. DeCoursey
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All published articles in the ESNBU are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don't have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
In other words, under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license users are free to:
Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution (by) - All CC licenses require that others who use your work in any way must give you credit the way you request, but not in a way that suggests you endorse them or their use. If they want to use your work without giving you credit or for endorsement purposes, they must get your permission first.
NonCommercial (nc) - You let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify and use your work for any purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission first.
If the article is to be used for commercial purposes, we suggest authors be contacted by email.
If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, authors will notify ESNBU at the time of submission, and in such cases the article shall be released under the Creative Commons 1 Public Domain Dedication waiver CC0 1.0 Universal.
Copyright
Copyright for articles published in ESNBU are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. Authors retain full publishing rights and are encouraged to upload their work to institutional repositories, social academic networking sites, etc. ESNBU is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
Exceptions to copyright policy
Occasionally ESNBU may co-publish articles jointly with other publishers, and different licensing conditions may then apply.
