A data-based model of language teachers’ psychological literacy

Abstract

Few teacher education courses address the psychology of language learning and teaching explicitly, despite considerable evidence showing just how important such factors can be in determining the effectiveness of language teaching and learning. In this paper, we report on a study that sought to investigate what two sets of experts believe that language teachers at secondary-level schools might find useful to know about psychology for language learning and teaching; in other words, their psychological literacy. Qualitative data were generated with international researchers in the field of psychology of language learning and teaching (n = 26) and language teachers (n = 21) in order to combine theoretical, empirical, and practice-based perspectives on psychological literacy. The participants were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. Data were generated using online focus groups and semi-structured interviews conducted in English, which yielded a corpus of approximately 185,000 words. The data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. The findings indicate that psychological literacy can be conceptualized as comprising knowledge for understanding psychological issues pertaining to both teachers and learners and also being able to act appropriately on this knowledge in terms of a set of skills. Both teachers and researchers largely overlapped in their perceptions of suitable content, but there were also key distinctions determined largely by their different experiences. Interesting issues arose around perspectives on how such knowledge can be developed and the extent to which it changes according to the culture and age of learners and teachers. Our hope is that this initial study can pave the way for practical interventions as well as further research to support educators in their understanding of the psychology surrounding language learning and teaching experiences.

I Introduction

Language teaching is a highly complex activity, which requires a broad range of knowledge, skills, and competences including a knowledge of the subject matter, teaching methods, assessment issues, working with technology, knowing how to build positive social relationships, classroom management, and group dynamics, among others (Fillmore & Snow, 2000; Ur, 2024). In many language teacher training programs, the focus is typically on language teaching methods, assessment techniques, and content knowledge (e.g., CELTA, 2024). There is often little or no consideration of how to develop competences in respect of the interpersonal aspects of language teaching, such as how to build relationships, manage group dynamics, and help students cope with the emotional demands of learning and communicating in another language, even though it is widely acknowledged that effective language teaching also requires an understanding of individual and interpersonal psychology (Gkonou et al., 2018; Mercer, 2018). Such competences form the basis of psychological literacy for language education. To date, no frameworks exist for curriculum design or self-reflection, which can support teachers in developing their knowledge about language learner and teacher psychology. In this study, we draw on data from a range of experts to consider what the core constituent components of psychological literacy are, how it can be developed, and how it may vary across settings and populations. The aim is to provide an initial framework to inform practical interventions such as training programs as well as open up a new strand of empirical work into this core form of language teacher expertise.

II Literature review

1 Psychology in language teaching

Research in the field of psychology of language learning and teaching (PLLT) has shown the vital role played by learner psychology in language education, with learner individual differences being “the most consistent predictors of L2 [additional language] learning success” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 2). Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) categorized these characteristics into three interrelated domains including cognitive (e.g., language aptitude), motivational (e.g., L2 motivation), and affective (e.g., L2 emotions) dimensions, referred to as “trilogy of mind” (p. 10). Although these factors were traditionally viewed as relatively stable traits, recent research has highlighted their malleability and the potential for intentional change through pedagogical interventions. For example, studies have shown that interventions can enhance language learners’ motivation (e.g., Sato & Lara, 2019) and mindsets (e.g., Lanvers, 2020), while effectively reducing negative emotions, such as anxiety (Xiong et al., 2024). These studies are important in highlighting the fact that psychological characteristics can be changed through interventions, such as deliberate actions by educators, in order to promote more favorable learning conditions. Moreover, Dörnyei and Ryan emphasize the context-specificity of these characteristics, meaning that individuals’ experiences are affected by contextual and social factors. Therefore, factors, such as classroom social climate (Khajavy et al., 2025), group dynamics (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003), or even broader cultural norms (Mesquita, 2022) can affect these psychological constructs.

Research exploring language teacher psychology is more recent and less comprehensive than the body of work available on language learner psychology (see Mercer & Kostoulas, 2018). To date, it has primarily focused on language teachers’ motivation (e.g., Kubanyiova, 2019), cognitions (e.g., Borg, 2019), identities (e.g., Barkhuizen, 2017), emotions (e.g., Kruk et al., 2024; Morris & King, 2024; Pawlak et al., 2024), and wellbeing (e.g., Sulis et al., 2023). As Mercer (2018, p. 508) explains, “teachers themselves are valuable stakeholders in the teaching and learning process in their own right” and “their psychologies and professional wellbeing have been shown to be connected to the quality of their teaching as well as student performance.” Additionally, given that psychological states are “contagious,” it has been shown that attending to teacher emotions and wellbeing will likely also subsequently impact learner emotions and wellbeing (Moskowitz & Dewaele, 2021). Accordingly, understanding teacher psychology is essential for enhancing pedagogical practices, the quality of teacher–student relationships, and the emotional climate in the classroom. As Stevick (1980, p. 22) argued, for successful language learning, “what is really important is what goes on inside and between people in the classroom.”

Research examining individual and interpersonal psychology in language education has seen a rapid expansion of work in recent years, with specialized books (e.g., Gregersen & Mercer, 2022), special issues in journals (e.g., Smid & Mercer, 2025), an international book series (Psychology of Language Learning and Teaching, Multilingual Matters), a specialized peer-reviewed journal (the Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning), and an international association (the International Association for the Psychology of Language Learning) with a biannual conference (Psychology of Language Learning). However, despite the increasing recognition of its significance for the field, its explicit presence within language teaching education programs remains relatively rare. For example, a study by Gkonou et al. (2018) revealed that language teachers reported no or little training in psychology. One reason might be that some language teacher training programs are short, meaning that methods and tools tend to be prioritized (e.g., CELTA, 2024). Similarly, for example, in some state-run education programs, time for didactic and pedagogical training often competes with time dedicated to other aspects of language education, including literature, linguistics, cultural studies, and language competences, again meaning that relative time is short, and practical “how to” solutions are prioritized (Ur, 2019). Alternatively, there is evidence that in some settings, a focus is placed on theoretical knowledge of second language acquisition (SLA), which looks more deeply at language processing and tends to neglect the more practical dimensions of practice (Rodríguez & Bulnes, 2024). In all these formats, the role of understanding learner, teacher, and interpersonal psychology tends to be neglected or fleeting at best.

Given the acknowledged importance of psychology for language learning and teaching and yet the scarcity of teaching programs addressing this, the current study seeks to understand what aspects of psychology would be beneficial for language teachers to know about and what kind of framework of psychological literacy teaching programs could draw on to inform course design and content. Naturally, the structural and systemic problems prohibiting its inclusion need to be addressed too but an important first step is to at least have a practical framework to inform curriculum design or processes of self-reflection.

2 Psychological literacy

The term psychological literacy, first described by Boneau (1990), refers to core knowledge and skills acquired through the study of psychology. More recently, it has been expanded to refer to the capacity to intentionally apply this knowledge and skill set to meet personal, professional, and societal needs (Cranney, Dunn, et al., 2022). Thus, psychological literacy consists of both a set of capabilities, including knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and the ability to apply those capabilities in diverse contexts (Morris et al., 2021). Given that most societal issues relate to human behavior, it has been suggested that psychological education should become more mainstream throughout education (Halpern et al., 2010). This is, at least in part, already implied in a number of global curricula which include, for example, transversal skills, such as socio-emotional competences—the ability to identify and interpret emotions and use this knowledge to inform relationship building and responsible decision making (Gimbert et al., 2023; Odak et al., 2023). Naturally, if students should become psychologically literate, there is a commensurate requirement that educators themselves should be psychologically literate (Cranney, Morris, et al., 2022; Hulme & Winstone, 2017).

A psychologically literate teacher is aware of core principles of psychology and is able to understand how to employ this knowledge in the pursuit of effective teaching and learning. It does not require a degree in psychology, but means that a teacher can thoughtfully and meaningfully draw on psychological knowledge as part of their core competence set to support learners as individuals and as a group. Importantly, psychological literacy is dynamic and can be deliberately and intentionally developed, which is key for teacher education programs or self-study as evinced by numerous intervention studies (e.g., Horn et al., 2024).

However, a distinction should also be made between two types of knowledge: technical knowledge and practical knowledge (see Eraut, 1985). Drawing on Oakeshott’s (1962) distinction, Eraut (1985, p. 123) explains that technical knowledge can be codified, written down, and used explicitly whereas practical knowledge can be “expressed only in practice and learned only through experience with practice” and is often used implicitly. Eraut further argues that it is not always easy to distinguish between technical knowledge and practical knowledge as these two types of knowledge might be intertwined and applied together in professional contexts.

It has been suggested that teachers possess “practical knowledge,” which draws on their own experiences, whereas “technical knowledge” develops from training. As there has been a long-standing gap between researchers’ theories and teachers’ practice in the L2 classroom (Sato & Loewen, 2022), incorporating teacher experiences and perspectives is essential for research evidence to be accessible and applicable. Thus, it is important to consider how psychological literacy may be relevant to language teachers from a theoretical perspective, as well as teachers’ viewpoints of how an understanding of their own psychology has cultivated their practice.

III Language teachers’ psychological literacy

Psychological literacy in language education may be particularly important given the high degree of interaction and group work involved (Tanaka, 2021), the close link between language and sense of self (Escobar, 2018), the interplay of multiple social identities (Flores et al., 2015), the emotional labor involved in learning and teaching (Gkonou & Miller, 2020), and the potential threats to face in language use (Khajavy et al., 2025). A psychologically literate language teacher would thus understand how to adjust their teaching in order to effectively communicate and create learning opportunities for a diverse group of students, maintain a supportive classroom environment for all, motivate students to learn and use the language, reduce anxiety and potential threats to face, and foster positive group dynamics (Hulme & Cranney, 2022; McGovern et al., 2010; Roberts et al., 2015). They would also understand their own psychology, knowing how to protect their own wellbeing and maintain their own enthusiasm and job satisfaction over time while recognizing the constraints imposed by contextual and institutional factors (McGovern et al., 2010).

In this study, we seek to understand what language teachers’ psychological literacy could comprise by investigating the opinions and experiences of two sets of experts: PLLT researchers and experienced language teachers. The inclusion of both sets of experts provides an important first step in understanding discrepancies in theory and practice, with the future potential of bridging the gap between these communities (Sato & Loewen, 2022). As an exploratory study, we seek to answer the following research questions:

1. What do PLLT researchers and language teachers believe language teachers at the secondary level would need to know about language learner and teacher psychology for effective practice (in other words, what would be the content of psychological literacy specifically for language educators)?

2. How do PLLT researchers and language teachers believe language teachers at the secondary level develop their psychological literacy for language education?

3. To what extent do PLLT researchers and language teachers believe secondary school language teachers’ psychological literacy is context-specific?

IV Research methods

In order to answer the research questions, data were elicited from both researcher and teacher experts. This dual perspective ensured that both theoretical and empirical perspectives as well as situated, classroom-based, practical perspectives were represented to generate a more comprehensive picture of what psychological literacy in language education could meaningfully encompass. As this is a new area of scholarship, an exploratory, qualitative approach was employed to ensure grounded, complex, context-sensitive, and diverse data.

1 Context and participants

Participants were recruited using snowball sampling via the researchers’ social media platforms, such as LinkedIn, X, and Instagram, where a QR code linking to a brief explanation of the study’s purpose was shared. Interested volunteers were invited to choose a preferred focus group time from several available options. Subsequently, an email was sent to the registered participants, which included an information sheet about the focus group process, a consent form, and a short demographic questionnaire. All data collection sessions (DCSs) were conducted in English, and a self-assessed English language level of at least B2 (Council of Europe, 2020) was required to participate in the study although teaching a language was not restricted to English but also included languages other than English (LOTEs). The sample consisted of 26 PLLT researchers (male: n = 5, female: n = 18, no response: n = 3) and 21 secondary school language teachers (male: n = 3, female: n = 16, no response: n = 2). Language teachers were teaching in at least 12 different countries (no response: n = 2). The majority of them taught only English (n = 14), one taught only Hindi, and four taught multiple languages (no response: n = 2). The researchers had been active in the field for 8.6 years on average (between 4 and 20 years, SD = 3.9) and the teachers had on average 12.4 years of experience teaching a language (between 3 and 34 years, SD = 9.8).

2 Procedures

Data were collected primarily using focus groups. This approach was chosen to gain in-depth qualitative data provoked by interactive discussions in which participants’ perspectives could inspire each other and add unexpected directions to the data collection. All participants were invited to take part in focus groups consisting of between two and five members. All sessions were audio-recorded with the participants’ informed consent. In the case of teacher participants, for practical reasons we had to adjust our data collection approach by converting three of our planned focus groups into individual semi-structured interviews. Both interviews and focus groups with researchers and teachers lasted on average 74 min.

All DCSs followed the same protocol, which included open-ended questions that covered key topics, such as essential psychological constructs for language teachers, the significance of PLLT, the development of psychological skills, PLLT-related training and awareness, and the integration of PLLT into teacher education programs. However, the procedures differed slightly between the two expert groups of researchers and teachers. For the researcher focus groups, the discussions began with participants introducing their area of expertise. This was followed by questions exploring their perspectives on the psychological aspects of language learning and teaching that secondary-level language teachers should be aware of. They were then asked to reflect on how socio-cultural contexts influence one’s understanding of the psychology of the whole person. Participants were subsequently presented with a list of psychological variables from Gkonou et al. (2018) and asked to evaluate which constructs they felt were most critical for language teachers to understand. The discussion continued with prompts comparing PLLT to other areas of teacher knowledge, exploring how psychological sensitivity is developed in teachers, what kind of PLLT-related training they had received, and how a pre-service PLLT training course might be designed.

For the teacher focus groups, the sessions began with participant introductions and a question about their personal understanding of language teacher psychology. This was followed by questions about which psychological aspects of language learning and teaching they believed were important for teachers to know. From that point onward, the discussion followed the same structure as with the researcher groups, including the evaluation of psychological variables from Gkonou et al. (2018), reflections on training and awareness, and designing a PLLT component for pre-service education.

3 Data analysis

Data were firstly transcribed for content using Otter. Then, the team members checked the transcriptions and anonymized any identifiable data. The focus groups and semi-structured interviews generated a corpus of 184,680 words (see Appendix A for a more detailed summary of the data collected).

Data analysis was guided by our drive to understand the potential components of language teachers’ psychological literacy based on the perspectives of both sets of experts. Thus, we employed an inductive approach (Thomas, 2006) for data analysis, which primarily “allows research findings to emerge from the frequent, dominant, or significant themes inherent in raw data” (p. 238) and in which they were identified without any predetermined or existing categories. Initially, all the team members familiarized themselves with the data by reading and memoing the transcripts of three randomly selected DCSs. The team met and discussed the memos together to have a general sense of the further coding process and agreement on the content and direction of coding. Then, the analysis was conducted in two stages in MaxQDA (Version 24.1.0). In the first stage, the data from the researchers were analyzed by three coders, followed by the second stage in which the data from language teachers were coded by two coders. During the analytical process, the team embraced inductive coding and team debriefs, whereby one coder built up an initial coding scheme, which was gradually amended by other coders after multiple debriefing sessions. When necessary, the codes were also enriched by descriptive and reflective memos. Coding and constant comparison were conducted until the point of saturation, which is when “no new information seems to emerge during coding, that is, when no new properties, dimensions, conditions, actions/interactions, or consequences are seen in the data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 136). Then, the codes were examined to identify possible themes, categories, and connections among them. This analytical process was conducted through negotiation among the members of the analysis team to strengthen the trustworthiness of the emerging categories. The final code list was refined to 120 codes classified into the following overarching themes: theoretical dimension of psychological literacy, practical dimension of psychological literacy, factors affecting the content of psychological literacy, the development of language teachers’ psychological literacy, and the boundaries of language teachers’ psychological literacy.

4 Ethics

This study received two ethical approvals from the Ethics Committee at the University of Graz – one for the data collection from the researchers (GZ. 39/141/63 ex 2023/24) and one for the language teachers (GZ. 39/3/63 ex 2024/25). Before data collection began, every participant was given an information sheet that explained the study’s purpose and procedures. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant, making sure they fully understood their rights, including their voluntary choice to participate in the study and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any repercussions. Participants were informed that they would participate in an online focus group and they would be identifiable to other participants unless they kept their cameras switched off and ensured their names were anonymized at log-in. To protect the confidentiality of the participants, all identifying details were removed from the transcripts and their real names replaced with pseudonyms. In addition, all audio recordings and transcripts were securely stored on password-protected computers.

V Research findings

1 What is the content of language teachers’ psychological literacy?

The majority of responses from PLLT researchers and language teachers about the components of psychological literacy can be split into two dimensions: knowledge and practical skills (i.e., actions, behaviors).

a The knowledge dimension of psychological literacy

In terms of psychological literacy, most participants in both the researcher and language teacher groups focused on what this meant in respect of learners. Both groups tended to focus on knowing about specific constructs and what they meant for learners—17 different constructs were mentioned (see Appendix B). The most frequently mentioned in both datasets was emotions; it emerged in all DCSs either as emotions more broadly conceived or in the form of specific emotions. The second most cited construct in both researcher (n = 6 sessions) and teacher (n = 8 sessions) groups was motivation. The third most frequently occurring learner-related construct according to the researchers was wellbeing (n = 5), whereas according to the teacher experts it was learner autonomy (n = 7).

Both groups also felt that understanding language teacher psychology was a key area of psychological knowledge, which is interesting given that this field of inquiry is notably less developed than the body of work on learner psychology (see, e.g., Mercer & Kostoulas, 2018). Both referred to a broad array of related constructs, which comprised 23 teacher-related psychological constructs in total (see Appendix C). The most commonly mentioned were wellbeing and emotions by both the researchers (n_wellbeing = 9, n_emotions = 9) and teachers (n_wellbeing = 7, n_emotions = 6). The researchers also frequently mentioned other constructs, such as motivation, identity, and self-regulation (n = 6), while the language teachers also cited mindsets (n = 5).

It is interesting to note that there seemed to be a contrast between PLLT researchers and language teachers as to how frequently some constructs emerged (Appendices B and C). Specifically, in respect of what language teachers need to know about learners, it was predominantly teachers who mentioned self-confidence (n_teachers = 6, n_researchers = 3) and autonomy (n_teachers = 7, n_researchers = 4), whereas stress was mentioned primarily by researchers (n_researchers = 3, n_teachers = 1).

In terms of the knowledge related to language teachers’ psychology, researchers mentioned a significantly greater range of constructs more frequently than teachers; for instance, emotions (n_researchers = 9, n_teachers = 6), self-regulation (n_researchers = 6, n_teachers = 3), and self-efficacy (n_researchers = 4, n_teachers = 1) (see also Appendix C). Interestingly, it was only researchers who mentioned metacognition (n = 3), the notion of person–job fit (n = 2), and grit (n = 1) as topics relevant to an understanding of teacher psychology.

b The practical dimension of psychological literacy

The second competence area concerned how teachers could act upon psychological knowledge in terms of skills and behaviors in practice. One suggested approach was to cater for learner individual differences, which was cited in almost all sessions by both the researchers (n = 7 sessions) and teachers (n = 8 sessions). For example, one teacher talked about the important role of the kind of feedback given in fostering students’ self-confidence “so that they can come out of their shell” (DCS_13). With regard to special needs and individuality, one teacher highlighted the role of learners’ nonverbal communication and that teachers need to “realize where to pick them [learners] up and how to help them along” (DCS_14). Obstacles to teachers’ adopting an individualized approach in their classrooms were also talked about by both researchers (n = 1) and teachers (n = 2). To illustrate, a teacher said that it is becoming common in schools to purchase ready-made lesson content, which the teachers “just deliver [. . .] without even adjusting it to who they see in front of them, you know, without being aware what their students need” (DCS_14). A researcher reflected that language teachers might not be “ready or educated” (DCS_7) to deal with certain individual differences, such as identity issues surrounding sexual orientation or special needs if they have not received any suitable training. In sum, both groups agreed that knowing about a topic is not enough. The theoretical knowledge needs to be accompanied by skills to enact appropriate pedagogy and didactics tailored to the specific group of individuals a teacher is working with.

Almost all of the sessions with both researchers (n = 8) and teachers (n = 8) mentioned the importance of teachers being able to foster a positive and safe learning environment. One way suggested as to how this can be achieved was by showing a genuine interest in students’ lives and connecting with them as individuals. One teacher mentioned welcoming students at the beginning of the class and the importance of engaging with their responses: “I actually want them to tell me ‘How are you today?,’ and I tend to listen, ‘Oh, not so good.’ ‘Oh, what’s up? What’s wrong?’” (DCS_10), although they also acknowledged that this can be difficult with larger groups, and, thus, practical actions may vary according to class profiles. A teacher also talked about being able to monitor learners’ emotional states and, notice when they “are feeling down, [. . .] cheer[ing] them up to, let’s say, have a supportive environment” (DCS_12). A researcher commented also on the role of the teacher’s own emotions in fostering a positive learning environment: “being aware of your, like, own facial expressions and body language, when you’re speaking to somebody can really affect how they’re feeling, you know and also their ability to speak” (DCS_6).

With regard to the practical skills required in respect of language teacher psychology, both PLLT researchers and language teachers commonly cited skills concerned with maintaining wellbeing, regulating emotions, and minimizing stress and burnout (n_researchers = 4, n_teachers = 3). For example, teachers stated that it is important for teachers to know how to engage in self-care strategies, such as “exercising, diet, meditation” (DCS_13), and to “have a support system” (DCS_11). A researcher also emphasized the need for teachers to know how to maintain a good work–life balance by drawing boundaries and understanding that “not everything is your job” (DCS_4).

Another set of practical skills perceived as being part of psychological literacy in respect of teachers was being self-aware and engaging in self-reflection, especially with regard to their wellbeing, although this was mentioned more commonly by researchers (n = 3) than by teachers (n = 1). For instance, one researcher stressed that “teachers should also be aware of how important it is for them to look after themselves and their work in order to be able to teach to the best of their abilities” (DCS_9), whereas another researcher focused on the importance of being aware of one’s personality traits, as, for example, teachers’ “perfectionistic traits [. . .] might be detrimental for themselves and the students” (DCS_4).

2 What factors affect the content of language teachers’ psychological literacy?

Both researchers and teachers acknowledged that a more nuanced understanding of language teachers’ psychological literacy is needed by referring to a range of factors that they thought could alter the specifics of content. The two most frequently discussed in both groups of participants were context and the age of the learners. The role of context in mediating language teachers’ psychological literacy appeared in all sessions with researchers (n = 9) and teachers (n = 9). Four specific types of contexts were mentioned including the classroom, the milieu/family, the school/institution, and culture/society. For instance, in connection with the classroom, one teacher noted the impact of peers on language learners’ psychology, and thus the importance of understanding group-level interactions and not just individual psychologies: “it really like it has impact on them [learners] if the other friends [are] not wanting to learn” (DCS_18). With regard to the institutional context, a researcher highlighted the culture of a school and the impact of how well it suits a teacher on their psychology:

Teachers should know, for example, that the atmosphere at the school will inevitably impact their own wellbeing. So, if they take a job at a school that has a horrible reputation with some sort of terrible headmaster, it’s likely that they’re not going to be too happy after a while. (DCS_9)

Another researcher talked about the impact of society and culture on teacher and learner psychologies and how understanding them may thus vary accordingly: “the society that we live in, the culture that we live in, actually makes us who we are. And it also, not only as a person, but also as a teacher” (DCS_3). Another researcher believed that teachers need to adapt their teaching practices in respect of psychological constructs according to their learners’ cultural backgrounds: “as you proceed toward the east, students are more likely to be less autonomous, in terms of instruction, practice, and decision giving mechanisms. So, culture is also an essential factor to impact teachers’ way of providing instruction” (DCS_3).

The second factor consistently believed to lead to variation and adaptations among language teachers’ psychological literacy was the age of language learners. It was mentioned in sessions involving both researchers (n = 6) and language teachers (n = 9). Adolescents were the most frequently discussed group across the entire dataset, who, due to the effects of puberty, were believed to need particular consideration in respect of their psychologies. For example, a researcher highlighted that around puberty, learners’ identity is especially fragile as they might experience “some tension in terms of wanting to fit in and follow the class” (DCS_4), which requires careful handling by the teacher. One teacher (DCS_16) said that teachers should know about the “actual physical development of, you know, teenage brain, from child to adult” as it can affect learners’ reasoning, and, thus, inform “what we can ask our teenagers to do.” Younger learners were compared with older/adult ones when it came to individual difference variables, such as motivation and self-regulation, by both researcher and teacher groups. For example, a researcher explained that a teacher will more likely assume that adult learners can self-regulate and know “how to study and [. . .] how to organize their schedule and their learning” (DCS_4), but they would need to explicitly teach younger learners about these skills. Nevertheless, they also emphasized that this difference could also vary according to learners’ socio-cultural background.

In sum, there was widespread acknowledgment by both sets of participants that psychological knowledge and skills need to be adapted according to social contexts and the biographical profiles of learners, such as age and level of proficiency. One size does not fit all in terms of psychological knowledge and skills, so part of psychological literacy is being able to adapt one’s actions and understandings accordingly.

3 How do language teachers develop their psychological literacy?

In respect of how language teachers are believed to gain psychological literacy, two main issues emerged from the data. The first referred to mostly intra-personal factors affecting knowledge and skill development, and the second referred to interpersonal processes of how these competences can be acquired.

a Intra-personal factors and processes

A teacher’s own intra-personal factors and processes were believed to have an impact on how teachers develop their psychological literacy. Two specific factors and one process were mentioned: mindsets, intuition, and processes of reflection. In sessions with researchers (n = 6) and teachers (n = 5), mindsets were considered a psychological resource that could support teachers in feeling able to develop their psychological literacy. Having a growth mindset was believed to facilitate learning not only about one’s own psychology but learners as well. One teacher elaborated:

It’s up to the person, an individual. How much you, yourself, are ready if you want to change? You know? [. . .] So I think that would be completely an individual decision, how much one is ready to interfere, change, accept, adjust their own psychology, their own emotional patterns, behavior patterns, and learning about student psychology. (DCS_10)

Secondly, reflection was considered a key process whereby language teachers could develop their psychological literacy (nresearchers = 7, nteachers = 5). For instance, one of the teachers (DCS_11) mentioned the importance of teacher reflection in developing the psychological aspects of learning and teaching a language. One researcher also explained the link between emotions and reflection: “Why not try to lean into those emotions as windows into like your decision making in reflection? And what can your emotions from a particular experience tell you about yourself and the context that you’re in?” (DCS_5).

Far less common across the data but interesting to reflect upon was the mention of intuition as playing a role in the development of language teachers’ psychological literacy, as mentioned in one session with researchers and two sessions with teachers. For example, a researcher said:

I think some things you can probably point out [. . .] like the fact that emotions aren’t like, it’s not opposite sides of one coin that can be pointed out, but I think a lot of them [language teachers] will instinctively know this. (DCS_9)

The implication is that there are implicit ways in which psychological literacy can be developed over time and with experience. It raises questions about the extent to which psychological literacy is something that can be explicitly learned, whether it is learned through experience, or whether it was seen as something you just inherently know; the latter pointing perhaps toward a more fixed mindset about psychological literacy. It was not clear from these data in which ways intuition was being conceptualized by either set of participants, but it raises important questions for future work in this area.

b Interpersonal processes

i Teaching and collegial experience

Social resources were more commonly cited across the data in terms of how teachers can develop their psychological literacy. Two distinct resources were mentioned: classroom experience and professional experiences with colleagues. First, both researchers (n = 6 sessions) and teachers (n = 6 sessions) considered the years of classroom experience to be a key factor in the development of teachers’ psychological literacy. For instance, one researcher argued that “[w]ell, while some experienced teachers are maybe less affected with certain psychological aspects, novice teachers may have more difficulty in handling them, because the more experienced you get, you also have certain ways to handle with certain psychological constructs” (DCS_3). One of the researchers reflected on its implications:

you will acquire them by experience, you will be you know, you will be able to scan your classroom and see who’s who’s feeling well, and not well, if we’re talking about wellbeing of students at high school [it] is about who’s bored, who’s not bored, who’s enjoying the foreign language classroom, who’s, who’s not interested at all, and how you can make a difference or how you can change that. And as a novice teacher, that would be very challenging, I think. But later on, I guess more experienced teachers would know. (DCS_8)

Comparing more experienced with less experienced teachers highlights the potentially positive impact that training on psychological literacy could have for novice teachers but also the sense that some of this knowledge is often “learned on the job,” linking to the previous discussion on intuition and the potential role of experiential knowledge.

The possibility of learning by collaborating with colleagues as a way to develop one’s psychological literacy was mentioned in both teacher (n = 4) and researcher (n = 2) sessions. Although there was general agreement about the valuable role of collaborative learning with colleagues, there was also doubt expressed about the willingness of all teachers to do this. For example, one of the teachers stated that they felt teachers had given up learning together and that the value of learning through interaction among them was a big loss (DCS_15). Notably, the role of compassion was mentioned as a possible avenue to improve language teachers’ willingness to engage in more collegial learning experiences. Several teachers indicated its importance when collaborating with the aim of learning together. One teacher stated: “I believe that we lack compassionate communication between our colleagues” (DCS_15). Another teacher even suggested labeling observations as “compassionate observation” and including objectives to nurture teachers’ own psychologies: “Like we do as teachers, we put a smart objective and we create an objective, but we could also make it and plan and prepare for those practices” (DCS_15).

ii Explicit training and research

It became apparent in both the researcher (n = 8) and teacher (n = 8) sessions that coverage of language learners’ and teachers’ psychologies in teacher education has been limited at best and non-existent in most of their cases, although the majority (nresearchers = 24, nteachers = 12) agreed on how important they believed this pathway to developing psychological literacy could be. Both language teachers and researchers reported having been part of teacher education courses where they learnt snippets of psychology which can contribute to the development of psychological literacy, but it is patchy, often ad-hoc, and inconsistent. As one teacher stated: “it should underpin everything. It should be taught in great detail” (DCS_14). This perspective was echoed by researchers: “I think this area of psychology of language learning and teaching is a prerequisite that determines or belongs to teacher knowledge, digital literacy, testing, feedback. I mean, this area somewhat affects those procedures both in class and out of class” (DCS_3). Additionally, the researchers specifically mentioned that they had taught themselves their own psychological literacy: “I have not received such training. I am self-made, let’s say” (DCS_3); “It’s a self-cultivated process” (DCS_3). Most of the time, that knowledge was developed through conducting research in the field of PLLT rather than having received any formalized training: “what I’ve learned about it is basically, you know, what I’ve learned through the research that I’m doing” (DCS_6).

4 Where are the boundaries of language teachers’ psychological literacy?

Both researchers (n = 4 sessions) and teachers (n = 3 sessions) indicated that they had concerns about the distinction between psychologists and language teachers and thus what psychological literacy for teachers is and also what it is not. For instance, one of the researchers mentioned: “So, we are not a psychologist or psychiatrist, there’s a point that we should stop at” (DCS_7). Nonetheless, the data showed some uncertainty about where such a boundary lies. As one of the researchers cautioned, “when we try to translate psychology into practice, we have to make sure that we do not overstep [. . .] it should also be stated where the block boundaries are. Where we should stop and leave it to a profession, professionals” (DCS_3).

Related to this was the perceived mediating role of language teachers between learners and psychologists (n = 3 sessions for both researchers and teachers). As one teacher indicated: “Or, you know, sometimes students approach you with a problem that is the topic of a psychologist, but you are kind of the mediator between the learner and the psychologist. So you have that kind of mediating role” (DCS_15). To be able to decide when to mediate, both teachers and researchers indicated that an awareness and knowledge of psychology are necessary to make informed decisions as to when to intervene or when to recommend seeking out mental health professionals. A final point to note is that all discussions about the boundaries of teachers’ responsibilities focused on psychological literacy in respect of learners and not teacher psychology.

VI Discussion

1 What do language teachers need to know about learner and teacher psychology?

Across both datasets, psychological literacy was perceived as being critical for helping language educators to better understand themselves and their students. Teachers and researchers in this study agreed on two key complementary dimensions that comprise psychological literacy and that allow them to better understand their learning processes, emotions, and behaviors in the language classroom: knowledge and practical skills. In terms of the knowledge dimension, both groups mentioned knowing about distinct constructs; in particular, emotions were mentioned across all sessions. This mirrors the recent surge in research on emotions in applied linguistics as an area that had long been undervalued (Csizér et al., 2024; Dewaele, 2022). A similar salient role was assigned to motivation, the impact of which on the language learning process was mentioned by teachers and researchers alike. Likewise, in Gkonou et al.’s (2018) study, motivation emerged as the most important psychological construct and, indeed, as Dörnyei (1998, p. 117) argues, “without sufficient motivation, even individuals with the most remarkable abilities cannot accomplish long-term goals, and neither are appropriate curricula or good teaching enough on their own to ensure student achievement.”

Interestingly, teachers more frequently mentioned constructs that are readily visible in the immediacy of the language classroom or that are more domain-specific to language learning, such as self-confidence, autonomy, and willingness to communicate (WTC). These were also commonly occurring themes in the interviews conducted with Hungarian secondary school English-language teachers in Csizér et al.’s (2024) study that sought to explore the role of individual differences in language learning. In contrast, researchers mentioned more holistic aspects in relation to learner psychology, such as wellbeing and stress. These distinctions highlight the vital importance of a complementary set of perspectives from both practitioners and researchers to better understand the knowledge teachers may need in the immediate context of the language classroom, as well as the broader factors that may influence it and be less frequently discussed in teacher professional development settings. In this study, we actively sought to bring together experts from both domains to complement each other. Sadly, far too often, it is the case that teachers’ perspectives are left out from applied linguistics research, thus leading to a “unidirectional flow of knowledge between teachers and researchers” (Rose, 2019, p. 896). Yet drawing on both teacher and researcher perspectives can help answer more comprehensively “urgent questions such as how a field such as applied linguistics or SLA in particular can produce valuable and useful research that is beneficial to practitioners and ultimately, and most crucially, to students” (Becker, 2024, p. 282).

In terms of constructs related to teachers, emotions were again mentioned as playing a key role alongside aspects such as wellbeing and burnout, suggesting that these are core aspects of psychological knowledge recognized by both groups. The findings show that teachers are aware of how their own psychology influences their teaching practice and their learners through contagion processes, confirming earlier findings from Gkonou et al. (2018). Indeed, knowing about issues of wellbeing and being able to reflect on their emotions, manage their stress, and maintain their motivation were considered vital to survive in the context of this highly demanding profession (Mercer & Gregersen, 2020; Sulis et al., 2023). Yet it is surprising how little attention is still given to these aspects in applied linguistics research (see, e.g., Dewaele & Li, 2021) and in teacher training programs (Mairitsch et al., 2021) although there has been a notable surge of scholarship and interest in teacher wellbeing, especially post-pandemic (see, e.g., Mercer & Murillo-Miranda, 2025). In addition, researchers more frequently mentioned elements related to teacher cognition and metacognition than the teachers themselves did. It is possible that teachers may not explicitly reflect on these psychological dimensions in their daily practice or they may not be discussed in these terms, as reflection itself is a common practice in education and reflects a way of developing metacognition (Anderson, 2020). This raises questions about whether scholarship and research are always connecting with teacher practices and real-world concerns, especially if the discourse and terminology being used in both communities are not shared. This also raises specific concerns for psychological literacy that one part of the process of developing this is to ensure educators have the terminology to access relevant literature and notions.

This understanding, in turn, would enable educators to appropriately adapt their pedagogies and classroom practices to meet learners’ needs and individual differences, to develop a more positive classroom environment, and to build stronger relationships with students (see also Dörnyei & Muir, 2019). Indeed, although understanding specific constructs and their significance was deemed as essential by both groups, they also mentioned that knowledge alone is not enough. They both argued that it is equally important to develop practical skills and strategies to translate these concepts into effective pedagogies. It is widely recognized that often pre-service teachers can feel that there is a mismatch in the relative balance between theory and practice in their training (see, e.g., Resch et al., 2024). Especially for psychological literacy, it would be important to ensure a balanced perspective as both components lie at the heart of this competence framework.

In terms of learners, both sets of experts mentioned that a key skill is the ability to cater for individual differences and special needs, which aligns with the growing interest in inclusive educational approaches and ways of differentiating practice (Osae & Papadopoulos, 2024). Furthermore, both groups mentioned skills such as creating a supportive learning environment and fostering positive relationships with and among learners. Although group dynamics are widely acknowledged as playing a crucial role in the willingness of learners to engage and use language in class, research and training on this remain relatively scant (for exceptions, see Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003; Poupore, 2016). The widespread recognition of the vital role played by group atmosphere and classroom climate in these data highlights the need for greater work in this area to untangle the issues at play and to provide evidence for the kinds of practical strategies educators can draw on. It also emphasizes that psychological literacy is not about a single-person psychology but involves also understanding group processes and collective psychologies, which is a perspective notable by its absence in SLA to date (Leeming, 2020).

2 How can psychological literacy be developed?

In terms of how psychological literacy is developed, different perspectives emerged in the data. The majority from both teacher and researcher groups emphasized the equal importance of both explicit and implicit learning, suggesting that some competences—for example, understanding learners’ emotions—can be acquired through experience, whereas other competences, such as dealing with special learning needs, benefit from more explicit training. In terms of explicit psychological knowledge, teachers reported receiving very limited and inconsistent training in their teacher education programs both pre- and in-service. Much of teachers’ and researchers’ reported knowledge in this area appears to be self-taught, with the risk that only the most motivated or those with a strong growth mindset will engage in developing their psychological literacy whether as a teacher or a scholar. Therefore, awareness raising and explicit training about PLLT would be beneficial across the whole career trajectory but perhaps especially for pre-service and early-career teachers who have as yet only limited classroom experience. Indeed, although a significant amount of learning occurs on the job, some formal preparation on aspects related to learners’ and teachers’ own psychology could help reduce the reality shock and sense of unpreparedness that many new teachers experience when they first enter the classroom (Mason, 2017; Voss & Kunter, 2020).

In terms of implicit learning, this was impacted by having a growth mindset and developing the ability to reflect on one’s own psychology and experiences. The process of reflection appeared to act as a bridge between implicit and explicit learning, and between theoretical knowledge and practical skills. Reflection can serve to transform what is learnt on the job into explicit psychological knowledge connecting practical experiences with existent literature—and vice versa, whereby explicit knowledge can help an educator to interpret and make sense of their lived experiences. This highlights the need for both research-on-action and in-action (Schön, 1991). Critical reflection has also long been promoted as a way to “develop a better understanding of one’s intuitive experiences” and to “foster future ones as well” (Jeffrey, 2012, p. 42). This may explain why some participants reported that intuition played a key role in their own psychological literacy. Furthermore, the role of those intuitive experiences also aligns with current perspectives in language teacher cognition research (Borg, 2019), which not only highlights the impact of such prior experiences on teachers’ professional learning and mindsets, but also calls for more opportunities to explore them.

3 The need for context-sensitive psychological literacy

One key caveat emerging from the findings relates to how language teachers’ psychological literacy needs to be context-sensitive. This means that a teacher’s psychological knowledge and skills are not fixed but need to be adapted depending on a range of social and contextual factors. For instance, the learner’s age means that learners experience different needs and tensions at different stages of life, with puberty highlighted as a particular critical period of psychological sensitivity and development. Naturally, in this study, the focus was on secondary-school-aged learners given that these are typically the largest and most common population of language learners globally, but there are also increasing numbers of young learners (Li et al., 2018) and older-aged learners (Słowik-Krogulec, 2020), who will also have very specific psychological profiles to accommodate. Other factors mentioned include socio-economic status of families, levels of language proficiency, and possible presence of trauma, among others. In other words, it is not enough to know one’s learner as an abstracted individual within their position in class, but educators also need to have a more holistic view of their learners, which will help them respond with greater sensitivity to their learners’ needs and psychological concerns as well as an informed consideration of whether external psychological support may be required. In other words, psychological literacy also involves knowing the boundaries of one’s roles and competences and recognizing when it is necessary and suitable to help refer a learner or colleague to a psychologist for appropriate support.

It is also important to recognize that specific psychological constructs and their meaning may vary across cultures. For example, a teacher’s understanding of wellbeing may differ according to western versus eastern perspectives (Tov & Diener, 2009), and traditional models of wellbeing based on western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic countries may not be able to fully capture this construct in other contexts, such as in African countries, where the factors impacting wellbeing largely differ (see Schutte et al., 2022). Likewise, some emotions, such as guilt, pride, or excitement, can have different meanings and significance across different cultures (Mesquita, 2022; Tsai et al., 2006). This also applies to practical skills, which may also vary in different socio-cultural contexts in terms of what is appropriate; for example, building positive relationships with learners may be enacted differently in diverse settings. Similarly, aspects such as active engagement and WTC may be valued differently across contexts. For example, as revealed by Humphries et al. (2023), East Asian classrooms may show a tendency toward speaking reticence, suggesting that socio-cultural factors play a critical role in how participation and WTC are expressed. In such contexts, therefore, psychological literacy would require promoting participation formats that accommodate different ways of engaging.

Naturally, it is also important to acknowledge that the structure of teacher education programs is often predetermined at the national level in many contexts, which limits the extent to which psychological literacy can be taught explicitly to pre-service language teachers. One key limitation to consider is also that, in many contexts, teacher educators typically have a background in applied linguistics with minimal formal training in the field of psychology (see also Mercer & Ryan, 2016). Furthermore, despite growing interest in psychological aspects related to language learning and teaching (see, e.g., Dörnyei, 2019), instructional priorities and constraints in certain contexts still assign greater importance and value to formal linguistic components than to aspects related to the psychology of language learners and teachers. However, even without explicit psychological content, teacher educators can focus on self-reflection, emotional regulation, wellbeing, and fostering positive learning environments, all of which are key aspects of psychological literacy. These can be framed as teacher competencies rather than new subject matter, which makes them easier to incorporate within existing structures. Furthermore, aspects of psychological literacy can also be introduced later through in-service training or continuing professional development workshops.

4 A data-based model of psychological literacy

To summarize our core understandings from these data about psychological literacy in language education, we offer our model in Figure 1 below. It comprises the two key components of psychological knowledge and skills and highlights the connecting role played by reflection. All of this is embedded in various social contexts, which mediate both the processes by which psychological literacy develops and individual and social adaptations to the type of knowledge and skills encompassed. Thus, this model of psychological literacy must be considered as being contextually adaptable to diverse student and teacher populations in different contexts and across cultures in terms of its concrete content. We have attempted to keep the model simple to ensure it is easier to work with, but it naturally has the potential for greater complexification as required by researchers or practitioners.

Figure 1.

A data-based model of psychological literacy.

It must be stressed at this point that our study has limitations. One is that our sample was composed of mainly English-dominant researchers and teachers. Although the data included contributions from participants from LOTE backgrounds, the findings and the model might still have limited generalizability to them. Thus, we strongly suggest that our data-based model of psychological literacy be further validated and potentially expanded by LOTE professionals in further studies. Additionally, the products derived from our content analysis of the corpus could be formalized and subjected to systematic testing via interrater agreement (Dörnyei, 2007).

VII Conclusion

Although the data-based model presented is by no means intended to be prescriptive, we hope that it raises awareness of the importance of language teachers developing psychological literacy in language education. As highlighted by Smid et al. (2024), this does not require teachers to become psychologists or mental health experts, but rather to recognize psychology as an integral part of the repertoire of competences involved in being an effective language teacher alongside competences such as pedagogical, didactic, digital, and assessment literacies. Our hope is that psychological literacy may become a core component of pre-service language teacher education and continuing professional development programs, and that our model can serve as an initial guide to reflect on what such a curriculum could contain. We also hope that it can introduce the notion of psychological literacy to the field and open up an avenue of further scholarship in this regard.