title: Resilience in the context of learning English as a foreign language in Vietnam: An exploratory study using complex dynamic systems theory

authors: Hoang, Bao

subjects: Resilience

abstract: Learning a second/foreign language can be an arduous process during which the language learner may encounter many challenges both from the context and from within. To maintain the learning process and to succeed, it seems that the learner needs resilience - the ability to bounce back from adversity. Although success in second/foreign language learning has been claimed by SLA researchers to be attributable to various contextual and individual factors, resilience has received scant attention in the field of second language acquisition. This study explores the concept of resilience to shed light on the phenomenon of success in foreign language learning despite challenges and difficulties. It aims to conceptualise foreign language learner resilience in the context of English teaching and learning at the university level in Vietnam. The study is guided by the overarching research question What does foreign language learner resilience look like? 
This study explored foreign language learner resilience as a complex dynamic system. Accordingly, it took the notions of self-organisation of complex dynamic systems and retro-diction in researching complex dynamic systems as the basis for designing the research. The foreign language learner resilience system, hence, was explored retrospectively by identifying a selection of people who seemed to typify resilient learners and the study worked backwards to explain how they had become so. The study employed a qualitative research design which included focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews, sequentially linked with each other, as the two main data collection methods.  Three focus group discussions were conducted with teachers of English at a university in Vietnam (N=13) to identify typical resilient language learners seen as possible patterns in the system. Based on the focus group discussion data, questions for semi-structured interviews were developed for the second phase of data collection which aimed to identify the components of the system. Thirty students who self-identified as resilient English learners voluntarily participated in the semi-structured interviews.  They included first-year students (N=17) and fourth-year students (N=13) from the same university. 
Findings indicated that foreign language learner resilience is a complex dynamic system, composed of contextual and individual factors emerging from the interactions between the students and aspects of three contextual dimensions (community/society, institution and family), across their English learning trajectories. Core to the system are motivation, emotion, agency, autonomy, perseverance and optimism evolving and fluctuating in association with their interactions with the above contexts. The system is characterised by the nonlinear interactive mechanism between factors both detrimental and conducive to the language learning process. 
The findings of this study attest to the conceptualisation of resilience as a process in mainstream psychological research. Given the scant research into the concept in the SLA field, this study provides a new and deeper understanding of resilience in second/foreign language learning. More importantly, its findings help integrate a disparate set of contextual and individual factors influencing second/foreign language learning success.  As the study presents a new concept to the context of foreign language education in Vietnam, it provides teachers and administrators with insights into the difficulties and challenges Vietnamese EFL learners at the university level might face and the resources they can draw on in the face of adversity or stress. Drawing on the findings, it is suggested that teacher-student rapport should be enhanced to contribute to generating a synergy of motivation, positive emotions, autonomy and agency, perseverance and optimism that help the learners withstand challenges and difficulties to succeed in foreign language learning.

text: Resilience in the context of learning English as a foreign language in Vietnam: An exploratory study using complex dynamic systems theory Learning a second/foreign language can be an arduous process during which the language learner may encounter many challenges both from the context and from within. To maintain the learning process and to succeed, it seems that the learner needs resilience - the ability to bounce back from adversity. Although success in second/foreign language learning has been claimed by SLA researchers to be attributable to various contextual and individual factors, resilience has received scant attention in the field of second language acquisition. This study explores the concept of resilience to shed light on the phenomenon of success in foreign language learning despite challenges and difficulties. It aims to conceptualise foreign language learner resilience in the context of English teaching and learning at the university level in Vietnam. The study is guided by the overarching research question What does foreign language learner resilience look like? 
This study explored foreign language learner resilience as a complex dynamic system. Accordingly, it took the notions of self-organisation of complex dynamic systems and retro-diction in researching complex dynamic systems as the basis for designing the research. The foreign language learner resilience system, hence, was explored retrospectively by identifying a selection of people who seemed to typify resilient learners and the study worked backwards to explain how they had become so. The study employed a qualitative research design which included focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews, sequentially linked with each other, as the two main data collection methods.  Three focus group discussions were conducted with teachers of English at a university in Vietnam (N=13) to identify typical resilient language learners seen as possible patterns in the system. Based on the focus group discussion data, questions for semi-structured interviews were developed for the second phase of data collection which aimed to identify the components of the system. Thirty students who self-identified as resilient English learners voluntarily participated in the semi-structured interviews.  They included first-year students (N=17) and fourth-year students (N=13) from the same university. 
Findings indicated that foreign language learner resilience is a complex dynamic system, composed of contextual and individual factors emerging from the interactions between the students and aspects of three contextual dimensions (community/society, institution and family), across their English learning trajectories. Core to the system are motivation, emotion, agency, autonomy, perseverance and optimism evolving and fluctuating in association with their interactions with the above contexts. The system is characterised by the nonlinear interactive mechanism between factors both detrimental and conducive to the language learning process. 
The findings of this study attest to the conceptualisation of resilience as a process in mainstream psychological research. Given the scant research into the concept in the SLA field, this study provides a new and deeper understanding of resilience in second/foreign language learning. More importantly, its findings help integrate a disparate set of contextual and individual factors influencing second/foreign language learning success.  As the study presents a new concept to the context of foreign language education in Vietnam, it provides teachers and administrators with insights into the difficulties and challenges Vietnamese EFL learners at the university level might face and the resources they can draw on in the face of adversity or stress. Drawing on the findings, it is suggested that teacher-student rapport should be enhanced to contribute to generating a synergy of motivation, positive emotions, autonomy and agency, perseverance and optimism that help the learners withstand challenges and difficulties to succeed in foreign language learning.

year: 2021

title: Notes on the hydrology of the Waikato River

authors: Ridall, G.T.

subjects: Waikato river

abstract: The catchment area of the Waikato River is 5,500 square miles. If its source is accepted as being the Upper Waikato, then its distance to the sea at Port Waikato including its journey through Lake Taupo is 266 miles. It rises, together with the Whangaehu, the Rangitikei and the Wanganui, between the volcanic region of Ruapehu 9,000 ft. above sea level and the Kaimanawa Ranges 5,000 ft. above sea level.
The river flows northwards for 34 miles into Lake Taupo, losing its identity into the Tongariro for the last 26 miles to the lake. It emerges from Lake Taupo resuming its proper name and, still flowing northwards, passes for more than 100 miles through a series of lakes formed by hydroelectric dams to Cambridge. From here it continues through a deeply incised channel to Ngaruawahia where it is joined by its major tributary, the Waipa River. From Ngaruawahia to the mouth, a distance of 60 miles, shallow lakes and peat swamps predominate on both sides of the river, many of them protected and drained and developed into rich dairy farms. From Mercer, 35 miles downstream of Ngaruawahia, where slight tidal effects are discernable at low flows, the river changes its general northerly direction to a westerly one and, still 9 miles from the mouth, enters the delta. Here it is fragmented into many channels before emptying into the broad expanse of Maioro Bay and finally emerges by two fairly narrow channels into the sea on the west coast, 25 miles south of Manukau Heads.

text: Notes on the hydrology of the Waikato River The catchment area of the Waikato River is 5,500 square miles. If its source is accepted as being the Upper Waikato, then its distance to the sea at Port Waikato including its journey through Lake Taupo is 266 miles. It rises, together with the Whangaehu, the Rangitikei and the Wanganui, between the volcanic region of Ruapehu 9,000 ft. above sea level and the Kaimanawa Ranges 5,000 ft. above sea level.
The river flows northwards for 34 miles into Lake Taupo, losing its identity into the Tongariro for the last 26 miles to the lake. It emerges from Lake Taupo resuming its proper name and, still flowing northwards, passes for more than 100 miles through a series of lakes formed by hydroelectric dams to Cambridge. From here it continues through a deeply incised channel to Ngaruawahia where it is joined by its major tributary, the Waipa River. From Ngaruawahia to the mouth, a distance of 60 miles, shallow lakes and peat swamps predominate on both sides of the river, many of them protected and drained and developed into rich dairy farms. From Mercer, 35 miles downstream of Ngaruawahia, where slight tidal effects are discernable at low flows, the river changes its general northerly direction to a westerly one and, still 9 miles from the mouth, enters the delta. Here it is fragmented into many channels before emptying into the broad expanse of Maioro Bay and finally emerges by two fairly narrow channels into the sea on the west coast, 25 miles south of Manukau Heads.

year: 1967

title: Maori and goldfields revenue

authors: Hart, Philip

abstract: When gold was first discovered, the Crown accepted that it needed Maori consent to open their land for mining and had to assuage fears of losing their land. Accordingly, officials devised agreements to protect Maori interests and to provide a financial return. Because of what had occurred in other countries after goldfields opened, both Maori and the government agreed that these must be well controlled. Over time, the regulations increasingly favoured the mining industry rather than the original landowners, who were not informed about the true value of their land, auriferous or otherwise. Maori were confused about their financial entitlement because of changes made by the government to the fees payable to them. 
Some rangatira, most notably Wirope Hoterene Taipari of Ngati Maru, saw a chance to obtain unexpected (and unearned) wealth, as shown by his insistence on opening Thames to miners despite the opposition of most of his hapu. Later, other rangatira wanted to open Ohinemuri and other potential fields because of the money they were promised by impatient miners and by more patient officials. For a brief time, some Maori considered controlling the potential Ohinemuri goldfield themselves. The main incentive to opening land was the wealth received by landowners during the early days of the Thames goldfield, but as mining faded later so did goldfields revenue. Changes to mining regulations diminished the amount distributed to Maori in ways that some Pakeha considered unfair, and these provoked complaints from Maori.
A continuing problem for officials was to ensure that revenue was allocated to the right owners. The system was complex, resulting in delays in paying money and in some Maori obtaining too much and others too little (or none at all), an outcome often resulting from rangatira distributing it as they chose rather than caused by government officials, who did their best to ensure fairness. Over time, the government unilaterally made changes to the system. For their part, miners complained about being required to pay for the right to mine, and encouraged the government to acquire the freehold of goldfield land because miners’ rights on Crown land were one-quarter the cost of those on Maori land. 
The revenue received by the landowners soon slipped through their fingers, sometimes in traditionally competitive gatherings such as tangi. It can be argued that Taipari, who very shrewdly adapted to the new economy (and experienced its perils, becoming bankrupt in 1870), used his income not just to give himself a luxurious lifestyle but also to boost the mana of his hapu. The government has been blamed for not insisting that revenue be protected for the use of future generations, a concept that occurred to only a few Pakeha at the time and to no Maori; far from considering the interests of their descendents, cultivating the land decreased while this revenue was received. But due to the nature of mining, by the twentieth century the landowners were lamenting the serious decline in their income from this source; despite having sold so much of their goldfield lands, some complained at not receiving any more revenue. 
Evaluating the outcome, the Waitangi Tribunal indulged in some counter-factual history by suggesting that the government should have encouraged rangatira to set up trusts to protect the income for future generations, but no rangatira had suggested this idea, nor did they ask that they should manage goldfields jointly with the Crown. After imagining that Maori in partnership with Pakeha capitalists could have developed the goldfields without the involvement of the Crown, the Tribunal had to accept that the outcome would have been the same: loss of money (because apart from anything else mining could not remain payable indefinitely) combined with the loss of much of their land.

text: Maori and goldfields revenue When gold was first discovered, the Crown accepted that it needed Maori consent to open their land for mining and had to assuage fears of losing their land. Accordingly, officials devised agreements to protect Maori interests and to provide a financial return. Because of what had occurred in other countries after goldfields opened, both Maori and the government agreed that these must be well controlled. Over time, the regulations increasingly favoured the mining industry rather than the original landowners, who were not informed about the true value of their land, auriferous or otherwise. Maori were confused about their financial entitlement because of changes made by the government to the fees payable to them. 
Some rangatira, most notably Wirope Hoterene Taipari of Ngati Maru, saw a chance to obtain unexpected (and unearned) wealth, as shown by his insistence on opening Thames to miners despite the opposition of most of his hapu. Later, other rangatira wanted to open Ohinemuri and other potential fields because of the money they were promised by impatient miners and by more patient officials. For a brief time, some Maori considered controlling the potential Ohinemuri goldfield themselves. The main incentive to opening land was the wealth received by landowners during the early days of the Thames goldfield, but as mining faded later so did goldfields revenue. Changes to mining regulations diminished the amount distributed to Maori in ways that some Pakeha considered unfair, and these provoked complaints from Maori.
A continuing problem for officials was to ensure that revenue was allocated to the right owners. The system was complex, resulting in delays in paying money and in some Maori obtaining too much and others too little (or none at all), an outcome often resulting from rangatira distributing it as they chose rather than caused by government officials, who did their best to ensure fairness. Over time, the government unilaterally made changes to the system. For their part, miners complained about being required to pay for the right to mine, and encouraged the government to acquire the freehold of goldfield land because miners’ rights on Crown land were one-quarter the cost of those on Maori land. 
The revenue received by the landowners soon slipped through their fingers, sometimes in traditionally competitive gatherings such as tangi. It can be argued that Taipari, who very shrewdly adapted to the new economy (and experienced its perils, becoming bankrupt in 1870), used his income not just to give himself a luxurious lifestyle but also to boost the mana of his hapu. The government has been blamed for not insisting that revenue be protected for the use of future generations, a concept that occurred to only a few Pakeha at the time and to no Maori; far from considering the interests of their descendents, cultivating the land decreased while this revenue was received. But due to the nature of mining, by the twentieth century the landowners were lamenting the serious decline in their income from this source; despite having sold so much of their goldfield lands, some complained at not receiving any more revenue. 
Evaluating the outcome, the Waitangi Tribunal indulged in some counter-factual history by suggesting that the government should have encouraged rangatira to set up trusts to protect the income for future generations, but no rangatira had suggested this idea, nor did they ask that they should manage goldfields jointly with the Crown. After imagining that Maori in partnership with Pakeha capitalists could have developed the goldfields without the involvement of the Crown, the Tribunal had to accept that the outcome would have been the same: loss of money (because apart from anything else mining could not remain payable indefinitely) combined with the loss of much of their land.

year: 2016