Learning strategies and styles
2.1 Learning Strategies
Learning strategies are steps taken by students to enhance their own learning. Strategies are especially important for language learning because they are tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence. Appropriate language learning strategies result in improved proficiency and greater self-confidence. Throughout history, the best language students have used strategies ranging from naturalistic language practice techniques to analytic, rule-based strategies. Learning strategy workshops are drawing big crowds at language teachers’ conventions. Researchers are identifying, classifying, and evaluating language learning strategies, and these efforts are resulting in a steady stream of articles on the topic.
2.1.1 Definition of Learning Strategies
According to Chamot (1987), “learning strategies are techniques, approaches, or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning and recall of both linguistics and content area information”. Oxford and Nam’s (1998) study indicates that “learning strategies is a technical phrase that means any specific conscious action or behavior student takes to improve his or her own learning”. Oxford (1990) considers that “any specific action taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” is a language learning strategy (LLS). Strategies are the conscious steps of behavior used by language learners to enhance the acquisition, storage, retention, recall and one of new information (Oxford & Ehrman, 1990).
The concept of learning strategy is still a fuzzy one and not easy to have a final definition, though it has been over thirty years since researchers began the study of learning strategies. A summary of definitions of language learning strategies taken from the recent literature (Ellis, 1999:531) may help us have an overview of it.
Chapter Two Literature Review 7
Table 2.1 Definitions of Learning Strategies
Stern (1983)In our view strategy is best reserved for general tendencies or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the language learner, leaving techniques as the term to refer to particular forms of observable learning behavior.
Weinstein and Learning strategies are the behaviors and thought that a learner
Mayer (1986)engages in during learning that are intended to influence the learner’s encoding process.
Rubin (1987)Learning strategies are strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning directly.
O’Malley and “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them Chamot (1990)comprehend, learn, or retain new information”
Oxford (1990) Foreign or second language (L2) learning strategies are specific actions, behaviors, steps or techniques students use-often consciously-to improve their progress in apprehending, internalizing, and using the L2.
Cohen (1998) Second language learner strategies constitute those processes which are consciously selected by learners and which may result in actions taken to enhance the learning or use of a second or a foreign language, through the storage, retention, recall, and application of information about that language. They encompass both language learning and language use strategies.
Wen Qiufang Learning strategies are actions or measures which the students take in order to (2000) study more efficiently. This definition emphasizes two points: the goal of using learning strategies is the learner’s actions, rather than his/her thought. The action can be either exterior or interior.
According to Ellis (1999), several problems arise form these varied definitions of this linguistic term.
The first problem concerns whether language learning strategies are to be perceived of as behavioral (and therefore observable) or as mental, or as both. Oxford (1990) considers them as essentially behavioral, while Weinstein and Mayer (1986) thinks of them as both behavioral and mental.
The second problem is the precise nature of the behaviors that are to count as learning strategies. Stern (1983) distinguishes strategies as general and more or less deliberate approach’ to learning, for example, an active task approach and techniques as observable forms of language learning behavior evident in particular areas in language learning, such 8 as grammar and vocabulary. Other researchers, however, have used the term “strategy” to refer to the kind of behaviors that Stern calls techniques.
The third problem is whether learning strategies are to be seen as conscious and intentional or as subconscious. Chamot (1987) refers to them as “deliberate actions”. Seliger (1984) defines strategies as basic abstract categories of processing by which information perceived in the outside world is organized and categorized into cognitive structures as part of a conceptual network. However, some researchers consider that what starts out as a conscious “tactic” may involve into a subconscious “strategy”.
The fourth one is about whether learning strategies are seen as having a direct or indirect effect on interlanguage development. Rubin (1987) asserts that the effect is a direct one. But other researchers, such as Stinger, consider it to be more indirect strategy use that provides learners with data, upon which the deep subconscious processes can work.
Finally, there are differences in opinions about what motivates of the use of learning strategies. All the definitions above recognize that they are used in an effort to learn the L2, but Oxford (1989) also suggests that their use can have an affective purpose (i.e. to increase enjoyment).
Although the definition is not always uniform, there are some basic characteristics in the generally accepted view of language learning strategy. Oxford (1990:9) summarizes her view of language learning strategies by listing twelve key features. She states that language learning strategies:
- contribute to the main goal, communicative competence. Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ allow learners to become more self-directed.
- the role of teachers.
- are problem-oriented.
- are specific actions taken by the learner.
- involve many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive.
- support learning both directly and indirectly.
- are not always observable.
- ari often conscious.
- can be taught.
- are flexible.
Chapter Two Literature Review 9 are influenced by a variety of factors.
After identifying the above elements involved in defining language learning strategies. and in order to avoid any confusion caused by different definitions and owing to the research instrument of SILL in this study, Oxford’s definition (1990:8) of learning strategies is adopted throughout the this paper, in which learning strategies are seen as “specific actions, behaviors, steps or techniques students often consciously use to improve their progress in apprehending, internalizing, and using, since this definition fully conveys the excitement or richness of learning strategies”.
2.1.2 Classification of Learning Strategies
Classification of language learning strategies has primarily followed the theory of cognition (Macaro, 2001). Cognition refers to how the brain works for information processing and retrieval. Strategies are used to retrieve and store new information in the brain till this information becomes automatic and such strategies are classified into a system by researchers and educators. Classification of strategies has many advantages. Learning strategies have been classified by many scholars (Wenden and Rubin, 1987; O’Malley et. al, 1985; Oxford, 1990; Stem, 1992; Ellis, 1994, etc.). Strategy subsets enable researchers to describe the correspondence between mental processes and strategic processes (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). Strategy inventories may also serve as a valuable reference guide for educational instructors in the process of promoting autonomy in the language learner. Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is one such classification system linking groups through a series of self-report assessments and questionnaires. Oxford divides strategies into two major classes: direct and indirect.
Direct strategies refer to subconscious tasks, which are inherently learnt while indirect strategies refer to conscious strategies. These two classes are then subdivided into six sub-groups of memory, cognitive, compensation, social, affective and metacognitive. These subsets are interwoven with each other, creating an occasional overlap in the strategy groups. According to Oxford (1990), direct and indirect strategies and these six strategy categories function as a mutual support network within which various types of strategies enhance second language learning. Oxford’s inventory is designed in a way to suit not only students learning English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) in America but also students of any country. The inventory has already been translated into many languages and used as an effective tool for measuring strategy preferences and 10 developmental stages in strategy usage (Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995). The inventory also has a well-understood underlying structure for strategy categorization and employs a wide range of strategies, all items of which are checked and rechecked for validity and reliability. However, the SILL categorization system is not without its limitations. SILL has been mainly based on research conducted on either groups of mixed nationalities learning English as a second/foreign language or native speakers of English learning a foreign language in the United States. As a result, Wharton (2000) refers to the dangers of ethnocentric bias and applicability regarding the definition of the good language learning strategies as defined by educators and researchers from the United States alone. Some studies have demonstrated that the most frequently used strategies in a foreign language context in Asia vary considerably from those in the second language context in the United States (Takeuchi et al., 1999; Takeuchi and Wakamoto, 2001). Takeuchi (2003:391) recognizes the importance of distinguishing between common strategies and context-specific (or environmental-unique) ones as “promoting the survival of learners in the environment”. O’Malley and Chamot (1990:99), on the other hand, have differentiated strategies into three categories: cognitive, metacognitive and social/affective. Cognitive strategies are specified as learning steps that learners take to transform new material, for instance, inferring contextual guessing and relating new information to other concepts from memory. Metacognitive strategies involve consciously directing one’s own efforts into the learning task. Social/affective strategies involve interaction with another person or taking control of ones’ own feelings on language learning. Wenden and Rubin (1987) again classifies learning strategies into two categories: cognitive (steps used by learners to process linguistic and socio-linguistic contents) and self-management (planning, monitoring and evaluating), on the basis of their learning functions. Macaro (2001) conceptualizes all language learning strategies as standing in a continuum without a clear line dividing the strategy types into particular areas. Cognitive strategies lie at one end with their inherent, subconscious, automatic tasks and metacognitive/social/affective at the other end with their conscious, evaluative strategies.
Much of this classification research has been conducted in English as second/foreign language (ESLJEFL) settings. Regardless of how they are classified, the exact number of strategies available and how these strategies should be classified still remain open for discussion. A comparative analysis of various kinds of strategy classifications reported so Chapter Two Literature Review 11 far supported the view that O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) classification of strategies into cognitive, metacognitive and socio/affective strategies as well as Oxford’s six-subset strategy taxonomy are more consistent with use of learners’ strategies than the direct and indirect dimensions (Hsiao and Oxford, 2002). Purdie and Oliver (1999) discuss the potential dangers of applying results of strategy studies with adults and adolescents to child second language learners. Apart from the psychological and sociological differences that exist between adults and children (Purdie and Oliver, 1999), the approach to second language acquisition among child learners has been associated more with first language acquisition (Larsen-Freeman, 1991).
Among them, Oxford’s classification (1990) is the most extensive and detailed one so far. Oxford’s classification system is developed from Rubin’s and overlap with O’Malley’s to a great extent. And in this case study, one of the research questionnaires adopted is Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Therefore, the framework of Oxford’s classification of learning strategy (in Table 2.2) will be conducted in the study.
Table 2.2 Oxford’s Classification of Learning Strategies Creating metal linkages
Applying images and sounds Memory Strategies
Direct Strategies Practicing
Cognitive Strategies Receiving and sending messages Creating structure for input and output
Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing
Centering your learning
Metacognitive Strategies Arranging and planning your learning
Evaluating your learning Lowering your anxiety
Indirect Strategies Affective Strategies Encouraging yourself
Taking your emotional temperature Asking question
Social Strategies Cooperating with others
Empathizing with others
(Source: Oxford, 1990:17)
2.1.3 Researches on Learning Strategies
Learning strategies have been examined by researchers through interviews, questionnaires, diaries, observations and think-aloud protocols. The researches are mainly found in the following three areas: (1) classification of language learning strategies, (e.g. Oxford, 1990; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Wenden and Rubin, 1987); (2) variables affecting language learning strategy, (e.g. Nyikos and Oxford, 1993; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Oxford, Nyikos, and Ehrman, 1988; Wharton, 2000; Young and Oxford, 1997); and (3) the effect of strategy training on second language learning, (e.g. Kitajima, 1997; Oxford, 1990). All these studies provide insights into understanding the learning process by learners of a second language and are crucial in underpinning a framework for second language acquisition. The first area of research identifies strategies used by learners and classifies them according to a system or taxonomy. The second examines potential variables related to language learning strategies such as age, motivation, gender and learning styles. Finally, the third area & research explores the effect of explicit instruction in strategies to produce better performance.
Research on language learning strategies has been classified into three general categories: studies to define and classify strategies, studies to describe strategies in greater detail and the types of tasks with which the strategies are effective, and studies to validate the influence of strategic processing or learning. O’Malley and Chamot as well as Ellis (1994) note that most of the researches on language learning strategies haves been cross-sectional and correlational in nature.
Early research into language learning strategies was concerned with attempting to establish what good language learning strategies might be. While no explicit claims were made about links between strategies and success, the title of these early articles implied a relationship: “What the Great Language Learner can Teach Us (Rubin, 1975), and What Can We Learn From the Good Languages Learner?” (Stern,1975). Researchers were hoping to identify strategies used by successful learners with the idea that they might be transferred to less successful learners. Notable studies carried out since these early two include Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todescco’s (1978) study, Rubin’s (1981) study and the work done by O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, and Russo (1985).
Much of the work on language learner strategies has been based on the assumption Chapter Two Literature Review 13 that there are “good” learning strategies (Rubin, 1975), but some studies (Naerrsson, 1985; Gillette, 1987) find no difference between high and low-proficiency groups on specific strategies. Consequently, “the total number or variety of strategies employed and the frequency with which any given strategy is used are not necessarily indicators of how successful learners will be on a language task” (Cohen, 1998). In view of these mixed results more studies are still made necessary.
More recently, there have been studies on the benefits of strategy training. The goal of strategy training is to teach students how, when and why strategies can be used to facilitate their efforts at learning and using a foreign language. Strategy training is intended to help students explore ways that they can learn the target language more effectively, as well as to encourage students to self-evaluate and self-direct their learning. The first step in this process is to help learners recognize strategies which they have already used, and then to develop a wide range of strategies, so that they can select appropriate and effective strategies within the context of particular language tasks. A further goal of strategy training is to promote learner autonomy and learner self-direction by allowing students to choose their won strategies and to do so spontaneously, without continued prompting from the language teacher. Learners should be able to monitor and evaluate the relative effectiveness of their strategy use, and more fully develop their problem-solving skills. Strategy training can thus be used to help learners achieve learner autonomy as well as linguistic autonomy. There are mixed reactions to the language strategies training movement in the literature, mainly because there have been few empirical studies to demonstrate that such training has “irrefutable benefits”.
So far in the researches of learning strategies, a number of models for teaching learning strategies in both first and second language contexts have been developed. These international models share many features. All agree on the importance of developing student’ metacognitive understanding of the value of learning strategies and suggest that this is facilitated through teacher demonstration and modeling. All emphasize the importance of providing multiple practice opportunities with the strategies so that students can use them autonomously. All suggest that student should evaluate how well a strategy has worked, choose strategies for a task, and actively transfer strategies to new tasks.
Anyhow, the previous researches all focused on the successful language learners or 14 d~7 r#7 f.(s ~C the common subjects. So far few studies have been carried out for the low achievers in language learning. Thus, the research on low language achievers is quite a new area in the studies of learning strategies and learning styles.
2.2 Learning Styles
Learning style refers to the preferred ways which individuals use to solve problems confronted in their learning. The learners’ learning styles are often not perceived or used consciously. Learning style plays an important role for everyone to learn, to obtain information, to communicate with others. Knowing their own learning styles will help students to improve their language learning proficiency.
2.2.1 Definition of Learning Style
The term “learning style” originates from psychology. It broadly refers to the way in which a learner tries to learn something, based on individual characteristics, used unconsciously and not perceived. Everyone has a learning style, but each person’s is as unique as a signature. Each signature appears to be influenced by both nature and nurture. And Keefe (1979: 4) defines learning style as “characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment”; “Learning style is a consistent way of functioning that reflects underlying causes of behavior”. This definition is most comprehensive and acceptable.
In 1987, Willing defines learning style as an inherent, pervasive set of characteristics related with how learners prefer to learn or to deal with new information. Reid (1995, 69) defines learning style as “an individual’s natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills, and a pervasive quality in the learning strategy or the learning behavior of an individual”. Oxford & Ehrnan (1991) define the term “learning style” as preferred or habitual patterns of mental functioning and dealing with new information. And Dum and Dunn (1993: 7) define learning styles as a “biological and developmental set of personal characteristics that make the identical instruction effective for some students and infective for others”. To make it simple, language learning styles are the styles used in language learning, are the general Chapter Two Literature Review 15 approaches which students are predominantly disposed to use in order to learn a new language (Ehrman and Oxford, 1995:69), Oxford believes that language learning styles are likely to be a “direct refection of the individual’s overall learning style that is normally applies in most learning or working situations”. And in 1984, Reid generates six kinds of learning styles. At the same time, she provided the Perceptual Learning Style Preference Survey to test the characteristics of learning styles of learners.
And in psychological researches, the personality types influence individuals’ learning preference a lot. Thus, to some extent, the personality types of individuals can be taken as ones’ learning styles. Myers Briggs Type Theory was developed to provide practical application of the theory of psychology types originated by Carl Jung in 1923. It aims to identify individuals’ preferences, their most comfortable ways of behaving, including learning. And now it is used broadly in many areas to identify one’s styles in learning, working, etc. Therefore, in the light of the overview of the definitions of learning styles, we can assume that learning styles are the preference of individuals with respect to how they learn based on one’s own personality types.
2.2.2 Classification of Learning Style
Many researchers have tried different ways to investigate learning styles. Among them, some have used survey to collect data on learners’ stated learning preferences. In 1984, Reid generated six kinds of learning styles and provided the “Perceptual Learning Style Preference Survey”. Reid’s six learning styles are as follows:
- Visual learning (e.g. reading and studying charts, learning from seeing words in books, and participating class discussion)
- Auditory learning (e.g. listening to lectures or audio tapes, reading aloud and participating class discussions)
- Kinesthetic learning (e.g. involving physical responses, role-playing in the classroom, actively participating in activities)
- Tactile learning (e.g. hands-on learning as in building models; writing notes or instructions)
- Group learning (e.g. learning with others)
- Individual learning (e.g. learning alone)
Later Willing (1987) did another survey to investigate the learning styles of 517 adult ESL learners in Australia. According to the collected data, he identified two major dimensions of learning style. One was cognitive and corresponded closely to that of field independence/dependence. The other was more affective in nature. Based on these two dimensions, Willing describes four general learning styles (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3 Willing’s Classification of Learning Styles
General learning style Main characteristics
- Concrete learning style Direct means of processing information people-oriented; spontaneous; imaginative; Non-routinized learning
- Analytical learning style Focuses on specific problems and proceeds by means of hypothetical-deductive reasoning; prefers logical, didactic presentation
- Communicative learning style Fairly independent; highly adaptable and flexible; enjoying taking decisions
- Authority-orientated learning style Depends on other people; needs teachers’ directions and explanations; dislikes discovery learning
(Source: Willing, 1987:67)
Then, a more important classification is given by Oxford. Oxford identifies five learning styles in her Style Analysis Survey (SAS) in 1993. She makes the point that each style preference offers significant benefits for learning and that the important thing is for learners to identify the style preferences for that work and to apply them whenever possible. She notes that learners’ “comfortable zone” is their favorite style. The following is a description of the style contrast that appears on the SAS.
- The use of physical senses for study and work: visual vs. auditory vs. hands-on
- Dealing with other people extroversion vs. introversion
- Handling passable: inquisitive- random vs. concrete-sequential
- Approaching tasks: closure-oriented vs. open
- Dealing with ideas: global vs. analytic
In addition to these prominent classifications, there are still some other classifications given by different scholars. Nelson (1973) distinguishes “referential” and “expressive” learners. And Peter (1977) identifies that some learners are “analytic” (i.e. word-learners processing information through a sequence of stages of acquisition) and some are “gestalt” Chapter Two Literature Review 17
(i.e. sentence-learners who begin with whole sentences which are used to perform function that are important to them). And Reid (1998) goes overview of the classification of learning styles (Table 2.4). It is a full-scale of the main classifications of learning styles of the previous researches.
In L2 learning, learners clearly differ enormously in their preferred approach. But it is hard to say which style is the best. Among them, the classification of learning styles by Myers-Brigs Type Indicator will be conducted as the basic classification of learning styles in the following case study.
Table 2.4 Reid's Overview on the Classification of Learning Styles
Right-and Left brained Learning Styles
Right-Brained Learns more effectively through visual analytic, reflective, self-retaining learning
Left-Brained Learns more effectively throught auditory, global, impulsive, interactive learning The Seven Multiple Intelligence
Verbal/Linguistic Ability with and sensitivity to oral and written words
Musical Sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, and melody
Logical/Mathematical Ability to use numbers effectively and to reason well
Spatial/Visual Sensitivity to form, space, colour, line, and shape
Bodily/Kinaesthetic Ability to use the body to express ideas and feelings
Interpersonal Ability to understand another person's moods and intensions
Intrapersonal Ability to understand oneself one's own strengths and weaknesses
Perceptual Learning Styles
Visual Learns more effectively through the eyes(seeing)
Auditory Learns more effectively through the ear (hearing)
Tactile Learns more effectively through touch (hands-on)
Kinesthetic Learns more effectively through complete body experience
Group Learns more effectively through working with others
Individual Learns more effectively through working alone
Field Independent and Field Dependent (Sensitive) Learning Styles
Field Independent Learns more effectively sequentially, analyzing facts
Field Dependent Learns more effectively in context (holistically) and is sensitive to human relationship>. Analytical and Global Learning Styles
Analytical Learns more effectively individually, sequentially, linearly
Global Learns more effectively through concrete experience and through interaction with other people
Reflective and Impulsive Learning Style
Reflective Learns more effectively when given time to consider options
Impulsive Learns more effectively when able to respond immediately
Kolb Experiential. Learning Model
Converger Learns more effectively when able to perceive abstractly and to process actively
Diverger Learns more effectively when able to perceive concretely and to process reflectively
Assimilator Learns more effectively when able to perceive abstractly and to process reflectively
Accommodator Learns more effectively when able to perceive concretely and to process actively
Myers-Briefs Type Indicator (MBTI)
Extroverted Learns more effectively through concrete experience, contacts with and relationships with others
Introverted Learns more effectively in individual, independent learning situations
Sensing Learns more effectively from reports of observable facts
Intuition Learns more effectively from meaningful experiences
Thinking Learns more effectively from impersonal and logical circumstances
Feeling Learns more effectively from personalized circumstances
Judging Learns more effectively by reflection, deduction, analysis, and process that involve
Learns more effectively through negotiation, feeling and inductive processes tha postpone closure
2.2.3 Researches on Learning Styles
There are lots of variable that can affect each learning style. It might be difficult to analyze the overall learning profile of a learner. Therefore, the researchers in this field have mainly focused on learning style’s influence on language development, factors affecting learning styles, and how are learning styles related to language learning strategies. The study of learning styles’ influence on language development and proficiency is perhaps one of the widely conducted studies. Eliot (1995) in studying teaching pronunciation argues that field-independence is found to be a significant predictor of pronunciation accuracy. The potential influence of learning styles is also found out in the researchers made by Oxford et al (1992), and Ehraman and Oxford respectively. However, Griffiths and Sheen (1992) argues that the embedded figures test is not a reliable means to measure learner’s learning style, and they even conclude that it has not, and never has had, any relevance to second language learning. And more and more Chinese researchers focus on students’ learning styles in this research field, especially Wang Churning (1988) and Hu Xiaoqing (1997). Wang Churning (1988) employed Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style Preference and conducted a large scale research among the students in Guangdong University. According to his survey, the most favored style was tactile learning style and group learning style the least favored, and Chapter Two Literature Review 19 secondly, the length of learning time could affect students’ learning style and students from different grades had the tendency of presenting different learning style preference; and finally, there were great similarities of learning styles shown by male female students, and the learning styles are closely related to the language achievement. And in Hu Xiaoqiong’s research (1997), the Reid’s Perceptual Leaning Style Preference Questionnaire is also employed. His finding further proves Wang’s research finding that students preferred tactile learning style most during their learning process. And he also states that the students of English majors prefer multi-dimensional learning styles instead of a single one.
From the researches mentioned above, it could be considered that researches on learning styles are relatively few and almost all of the researches are conducted among English major students, and researches on perceptual learning styles of non-English major students are greatly lacking.
2.2.4 Learning Styles and Personality Type
Ehrman and Oxford (1990) cited nine major style dimensions to L2 learning, although many more style aspects might also prove to be influential. And among them, sensory preferences, personality types, desired degree of generality, and biological differences are those most strongly associated with L2 learning. Personality type is important for L2 education, which consists of four strands: Extraverted vs. Introverted; Intuitive-random vs. Sensing-sequential; Thinking vs. Feeling; and Judging vs. Perceiving. Personality type is a construct based on the work of psychologist Carl Jung. Ehrman and Oxford (1989, 1999) find a number of significant relationships between personality type and L2 proficiency in native-English-speaking learners of foreign languages. And Myers-Briggs Type Theory was developed to provide practical application of the theory of psychology types-personality types which was originated by Carl Jung. Jung’s book, Psychological Types, was first published in the United States in 1923. Jung proposed that individuals have preferences in the manner in which they perceive or acquire information, and the manner in which they judge or make decisions about that information. Jung referred to the perceiving functions as Sensing or Intuiting. He referred to the judging functions as Thinking or Feeling. In Jung’s view, individuals have a 20a~:b~~}z’r`X_preference for one of the Perceiving functions over one and one of the Judging functions over the other. He also introduced the concepts of Introversion and Extroversion, although he did not develop them as fully as he did the Perceiving and Judging functions.
Briggs and Myers (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) expanded upon Jung’s work. They retained the perceiving (sensing or intuiting) functions and the judging (thinking or feeling) functions, but embellished the Extroversion/Introversion dimension as one’s orientation to life. They also asked the Judging/Perceiving dimension as one’s orientation to the outer world. Their development of type theory thus included four components: (1) orientation is life; (2) the perceiving function; (3) the judging function and (4) orientation to the outer world. These components, which are referred to as either orientation or functions, and the preferences related to each other, are illustrated in the following Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Myers-Briggs Components and Preferences
Orientation to Life: Extraversion(E) or Introversion(I)
Perceiving Function: Sensing(S) or Intuiting(N)
Judging Function: Thinking(T) or Feeling(F)
Orientation to Outer World: Judging(J) or Perceiving(P)
Myers-Briggs theory is based on dichotomous preferences, with individual having a preference of one choice for each dimension. For example, one may prefer either Extroversion (E) or Introversion (I) as their orientation to life. Similarly, one may have a preference for either Sensing (S) or Intuiting (N) as their perceiving function; Thinking (T) or Feeling (F) as their judging function; and Judging (J) or Perceiving (P) as their orientation to the outer world. One’s overall type preference is the combination of their preference in each of the four dimensions and is expressed by a combination of these letters depicted in the above table. An individual who has a preference for extroversion, sensing, thinking and judging would, consequently, be typed as ESTJ. Conversely, someone with a preference for introversion, intuiting, feeling and perceiving would be typed as an INFP. Individual type preference is determined by use of a diagnostic questionnaire, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
And an embellishment of type theory was offered in the work of Keirsey and Bates (1984). They built upon the concept of temperament, integrating the work of Jung with the Chapter Two Literature Review 21 four temperaments (Sanguine, Choleric, Phlegmatic, and Melancholic) of Hippocrates. Temperament, according to Keisery and Bates, (1984:27) is “that which places a signature or thumbprint on each one’s action, making it recognizably one’s own. Temperament theory is more behaviorally oriented than is typology, which is concerned with one’s psychological preferences. The four temperaments identified by Keirsey and Bates are Dionysian (SPs), Epimethean (ST’s), Promethean (NT’s) and Apollonian (NF’s).
2.3 Learning Strategies and Learning Styles
2.3.1 Relationship between Learning Strategies and Learning Styles
The difference between learning strategies and learning styles is unclear. As Reid (2002) points out, learning strategies are external skills that students use, often consciously to improve their learning; it might be described as skills that students can be taught that can enhance to expand their learning styles. In contrast, learning styles are inherently based stable and pervasive characteristics often not perceived or used consciously, that are the basis for the intake and understanding of new information, students can identify their preferred learning styles and stretch those styles by examining and practicing various learning strategies. So, strategies vary widely within an individual while learning styles are more constant and predictable.
Recent research (Ehnnan & Oxford, 1988, 1989) suggests that learning style has a significant influence on students’ choice of learning strategies, and both styles and strategies affect learning outcomes. An individual’s learning style preference influences the types of learning strategies that he or she will employ in acquiring a second language. More often students who favor group study utilize social and interactive strategies, such as working with peers, requesting clarification, and asking for correction. Those who prefer tactile and kinesthetic perceptual learning styles seek out native speakers and engage others in conversation, thereby becoming directly involved with the subject matter being learned. Learners who prefer the visual mode tend to choose visualization as a strategy. Individual learners choose model building, reflecting the self-directed and individualized nature of that strategy.
However, students who become aware of their learning style preferences do not often develop a parallel awareness of the strategies that they use naturally to assist them in 22 a1ir#lf.*~ +*ail`’t learning the new language.
2.3.2 Researches on the Relationship between Learning Strategies and Learning Styles
The relationship between language learning styles and strategies is complex, and, until recently, almost fully unexplored. However, it is likely that a strong relationship exists between individual preferred styles and their choice of language learning strategies.
Some studies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1988,1989; Oxford & Ehrman, 1989) investigated this relationship. In one study, a measure of strategy choice, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1986) is used and a measure of psychological type, style dimension on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) is also used as a measure of learning style (Lawrence, 1986). The MBTI is based on Carl Jung’s original classification of learning styles, which includes Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving. The study showed statistically significant relationships between styles and strategies. Extroverts reported greater use of effective strategies and visualization strategies than did introverts. Introverts reported more frequent use of strategies involving searching for and communicating meaning. Ehrman and Oxford (1988, 1989) explained the result with reference to the following conceptions of style. Extroverts’ stronger preference for visual strategies could be related to their orientation to the outer world of people and things, and their greater preference for affective strategies might reflect strong interest or ability in or deal with feelings. Introverts’ focus on meaning seems to relate to their concern for inner world of ideas. Styles learners preferred were generally reflected in the learning strategies that did not reflect their natural style inclinations.
Oxford (1989, cited in Ellis) claims that “it is likely that a strong relationship exists between the individual’s use of learning strategies and styles, sadly little research has been dedicated to the relationship between learning strategy use and learning style.” Significant relationship has been discovered between sensory preferences (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile) and overall strategy use by Rossi-le (1989, cited in Oxford & Barry-Stock, 1995). She also found significant predictive relationships through multiple regressions. The results obtained in Rossi-le’s research indicated that the visual learners tended to use visualization strategies and that auditory learners used memory strategies more frequently than did the other learners. Tactile learners, compared with others showed significant use of strategies for searching for communicating and meaning and management/ metacognitive strategies. Kinesthetic learners did not employ general strategies. Strategies or self-management/metacognitive strategies were used as frequently as the others did. Students who preferred group study utilized social and interactive strategies, such as working with peers, requesting clarification, asking for correction.
Rossi-le (1995) conducted another research concerning the relationship between the preferred learning styles and strategy preference in an EFL context. Important relationships were also revealed in the results. The students who preferred the kinesthetic and tactile group were authentic language users. The learners favoring the visual styles chose visualization strategies. Interactive strategies were used by learners who preferred group learning, and the individual learners preferred model building. Oxford and Ehrman (1995) examined correlations between learning strategies and styles by employing SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning; Oxford, 1990) and the LSP (The Learning Style Profile; Keefe et al, 1989) respectively. The research results also indicate strong relationship between language learning strategy use and the sensory preference of the learners. Their findings show that visual learners tend to use strategies involving reading alone, in a quiet place or paying attention to blackboards, movies, computer screens, and other forms of visual stimulation. The auditory learners were found to be at ease without visual input and often manipulated strategies that encouraged conversion in a noisy, social environment with numerous sources of aural stimulation. The kinesthetic students were found to be in need of movement strategies and the tactile ones needed strategies that required the manipulation of real objects in the learning environment. Yet, both kinesthetic and tactile learners were found to need to use the strategy of taking frequent breaks.
Shih and Gamon (2003) also conducted a research to reveal the relationship among students’ learning styles, motivation, learning strategies, and achievement in Web-based courses. The results of their research were in a sharp contrast with previous conclusions. They reported that the achievement of the students with different learning styles and backgrounds in Web-based course was equally good and that learning styles did not have an impact on students’ motivation and the use of learning strategies.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Scarcella, R. & Oxford, R. 1992. The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Shih, C. C. & Gamon, J. 2003. Student learning styles, motivation, learning strategies, and achievement in web-based course.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. New York: Oxford
Stem, H H. 1975. What we learn form the good language learner? Canadian Modern
Language Review, 31:304-318.
Stem, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford:
Takeuchi, Osamu, H. Yoshida, S. Yoshida, & H. Mine. 1999. Toward the establishment of country-by-country SILL norms. Language Laboratory, 36: 51-62.
Takeuchi, 0. & N. Wakamoto. 2001. Language learning strategies used by Japanese
college learners of English: a synthesis of four empirical studies. Language
Education and Technology, 38: 21-43.
Takeuchi, 0. 2003. What can we learn from good language learners? A qualitative study in the Japanese foreign language context. System, 31:385-392.
Weinstein, C. & R. Mayer. 1986. The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M.(Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: MaCmillan.
Wenden, A. 1998. Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4): 515-537.
Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning. UK: Prentice
Hall International Itd.
Wen Qiufang, & R. K. Johnson. 1997. L2 learner variables and English achievement: a study of tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18(1): 27-48.
Wharton, G. 2000. Language learning strategy of use of bilingual foreign langauge learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(6): 203-243.
Willing, K. 1988. Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education. Adelaide, South Australia:
Young, D. & R. Oxford. 1997. A gender-related analysis of strategies used to process
TE:f rti k*.tf+*4:1-&
Reid, J. M. (Ed.), Learning Styles in the ESLIEFL classroom. New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Oxford, L. 2003. Language learning styles and strategies: an overview. Learning Styles & Strategies.
Oxford, R. L. & Barry-Stock, J. A. 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategies world wide with the ESLJEFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). System, 23: 1-23.
Oxford, R. L. & Ehrman, M. E. 1995. Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23:359-386.
Oxford, R. L. & Green, J. M. 1995. Making sense of learning strategy assessment: toward a higher standard of research accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 29: 166-171.
Oxford, R., M. Nyikos, & M. Ehrman. 1988. Vive la difference? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 21(4):321-329.
Peacock, M. 2001. Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1): 1-20.
Purdie, N. & R. Oliver. 1999. Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children. System, 27(3): 375-388;
Reid, J. 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21: 87-111.
Reid, J. 1995. Learning Styles in the ESLIEFL Classroom. New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Ã¢â‚¬Â¢
Reid, J. 2002. Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Rossi-le, L. 1995. Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning Styles in the ESLIEFL Classroom. New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Rubin, J. 1975. What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9: 41-51.
Rubin, J. 1987. Learner strategies: theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In Wendden and Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies and Learning. Englewood Cliffs,
Interpretations from information processing theory and social psychology. Modern
Language Journal, 77(1): 11-22.
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G, Kupper, L. & Russo, R. P. 1985.
Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language
Learning, 35: 21-46.
Oxford, R. L. 1989. Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for teacher training. System, 17: 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. 1992. Language learning strategies in a Nutshell: update and ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal, 18-22.
Oxford, R. L. 1993a. Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 13:175-87.
Oxford, R. L. 1993b. Style analysis survey. In Reid (Ed.), Langauge Learning Styles in the
ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle& Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. 1996a. Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-cultural
Perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R. L. 1996b. Personality type in the foreign or second language classroom:
Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In A. Horning & R. Sudol (Eds.),
Understanding Literacy: Personality Preferences in Rhetorical and Psycholinguistic
Contexts, 149-175. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Oxford, R. L. 1999a. Language Learning Strategies in the Context of Autonomy, Synthesis of Findings from the International Invitational Conference on Learning Strategy
Research, New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University,.
Oxford, R. L. 1999b. Relationships between learning strategy use and language
proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self-regulation. In L. Bobb (Ed.),
Learner Autonomy as a Central Concept of Foreign Language Learning: Special
Issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 38: 109-126.
Oxford, R. L. 2002. Gender differences in language learning styles: what do they mean? In 62 4f}s~
Griffiths, B. & Sheen, R. 1992. Disembeddied figures in the landscape: a reappraisal of L2 research on field dependence/independence. Applied Linguistics, 13: 133-148.
Hsian & Oxford, R. L. 2002. Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86: 368-383.
Hu, W. & Grove, W. 1991. Encountering the Chinese Yarmouth. ME: Intercultural Press.
Hudson-Ross, S. & Dong, Y. R. 1990. Literacy learning as a reflection of language and
culture: Chinese elementary school education. Reading Teacher, 44: 110-123.
Keefe, J. W. 1979. Learning style: an overview. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student Learning
Styles: Diagnosing and Precision Programs, 1-17. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kitajima, Ryu. 1997. Referential strategy training for second language reading comprehension of Japanese texts. Foreign Language Annals, 30(1): 84-97.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1991. Second language acquisition research: staking out the territory.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(2): 315-350.
Lawrence, G. 1986. A synthesis of the brain and foreign language teaching. Folla Salivica, 8(1): 76-90.
Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy: Definitions, Issues, and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Littlemore, J. 2001. An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22(2): 241-65.
Macaro, Ernesto. 2001. Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms.
McDounough, S. H. 1999. Learner strategies. Language Teaching, 32: 1-18.
Myers, I. B. & Mc Caulley, M. H. 1985. A Guide to the Development and Use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Neilson, G. L. 1995. Review of language learning strategy research and its implications.
Unpublished Bachelor Thesis. Tottori University, Tottori, Japan.
Nyikos, Martha & Rebecca Oxford, 1993. A factor analytic study of language learning strategy use: interpretations from information processing theory and social psychology. Modern Language Journal, 77(1): 105-124.
Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. London: Prentice Hall.
Nam, Christine & R. L. Oxford. 1998. Portrait of a future language learning strategy use:
References 61 strategies.
In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies Around the World:
Cross-cultural Perspectives, 89-106. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Cornett, C. 1983. What You Should Know about Teaching and Learning Styles.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Dreyer, C. 1992. Learner variables as predictors of ESF proficiency. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. South Africa: Potchefstroom University.
Donate, D. R. & MacCormick, D. 1994. A sociocultural perspective on language learning
strategies: the role of mediation. Modern Language Journal, 78: 453-464.
Ellis, R. 1994. Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University.
Ellis, G. & Sinclair, B. 1989. Learning to Learn English, CUP.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adults’ language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 73(1): 1-13.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. 1990. Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74: 311-326.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. 1995. Cognition plus: Correlations of language learning success The Modern Language Journal, 79: 67-89.
Ehrman, M. E. 1996. Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties. Thousand
Oak: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Eliot, A. R. 1995. Foreign language phonology: field independence, attitude, and the success of formal instruction in Spanish pronunciation. The Modern Language
Journal, 79: 530-542.
Grellet, F. 1987. Developing Reading Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Green, J. M. 1991. Language learning strategies of Puerto Rico strategy university students. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of Puerto Rico Teachers of English
to Speakers of other Languages, PR: San Juan.
Green, J. M. & Oxford, R. L. 1993. New analysis on expanded Puerto Rico strategy data.
Unpublished Manuscript. Mayaguez and AL: University of Puerto Rico and University of Alabama.
Green, J. & Oxford, R. L. 1995. A close look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and
gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29: 261-297.
Abraham, R. & Vann, R. 1987. Strategies of two learners: a case study. In A. L. Wenden &
J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. 85-102. New York:
Bailystok, E. 1990. Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of
Second-language Use. Oxford. U.K.: Blackwell.
Bailey, P., A. J. Onwuegbuzie & C. E. Daley. 2000. Using learning style to predict foreign language achievement at the college level. System, 28(1):115-33.
Bedell, D. A. & Oxford, R. L. 1996. Cross-Cultural comparisons of Language learning strategies in the People’s Republic of China and other Countries. In Oxford (Ed.),
Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives. Manoa:
University of Hawaii second language teaching & curriculum center, 47-60.
Brown, D. H. 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. NJ: Prentice Hall
Carson, Joan G & Ann Longhini. 2002. Focusing on learning styles and strategies: a diary study in an immersion setting. Language Learning, 52(2): 401-438.
Carrell, P. L. & Monroe L. B. 1993. Learning styles and composition. Modern Language Journal, 77(2):148-62.
Chamot, A. U. 1987. The language strategies of ESL students. In: A. L. Wenden and J.
Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. UK: Prentice Hall International Ltd.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. & Robbins, J. 1996. Methods for teaching learning strategies in the foreign language classroom. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language
Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives, 175-188. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Cohen, A. D. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Essex, U.K.: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. & Scott, K. 1996. A synthesis of approaches to assessingOrder Now