“Language learning styles: Research and practical considerations for teaching in the multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom” (1992). R. Oxford et al.

Posted on July 29, 2012 by maritza

Oxford, R. L., Holloway, M. E., & Horton-Murillo, D., (1992) “Language learning styles: Research and practical considerations for teaching in the multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom”. (Journal article)

In this article, Oxford et al. consider the negative effects of not dealing with students’ language learning styles in the classroom. They analyse six cases of “style wars”. That is, the clash between teachers’ learning and teaching styles and students’ learning styles. In the cases studied the emphasis is on the cross-cultural origin of the conflict, implying that the learning styles in confrontation are determined by the cultural background of the teacher and the student. The purpose of the research is to provide a guide on how to minimize teacher-student style disparities in the multicultural post-secondary ESL/EFL classroom.

In this study, the researchers took into account the following learning style dimensions in order to help the participants to describe their problem in a free-writing exercise on the topic “teacher-student style wars”:

  • Global and analytic
  • Field-dependent and field-independent
  • Feeling and thinking
  • Impulsive and reflective
  • Intuitive-random and concrete-sequential
  • Closure-oriented and open
  • Extroverted and introverted
  • Visual, auditory, and hands-on (tactile and kinesthetic)

 

These dimensions and the strategies associated with them are explained, indicating the cultural communities in which they prevail. Thus, some generalizations are suggested. For example, Hispanic ESL/EFL students are expected to be global and feeling oriented, as well as field-dependent. Korean and Arabic speaker students tend to use rote memorization, a strategy linked to concrete-sequential styles. But, while Korean students are highly visual, Arabic speakers are more auditory.

As for this study, the cases are presented under the header “Example” and identified with letters. The name, cultural and academic background of each participant is provided. A diagnosis paragraph puts the problem in terms of learning style dimensions. Finally, the description of the participant is offered without modifications. The cases, in brief, are:

Example A: Male American teacher vs. Female Korean student. Example B: Male American teacher vs. Male Chinese student. Example C: Female Chinese teacher vs. Female American student. Example D: Male American teacher vs. Female Latin American Student. Example E: Male American teacher vs. Chinese students. Example F: Male Japanese teacher vs. Japanese students. The last two cases describe the experience of teachers who consciously decided to use teaching strategies in conflict with their own learning style. They attempted to overcome their own style preferences in order to adapt their teaching to a certain instructional theory, instead of adapting it to their students’ styles.

The recommendations for teachers to optimize styles in the multicultural ESL/EFL classroom at the post-secondary level are:

  1. Assess the learning style of both teacher and students through discussions where students become aware of the variety of styles presented in the classroom.
  2. Alter the teaching style in order to create teacher-student style matching through a wide range of activities that meet the needs of different learning styles.
  3. Provide activities with different groupings, accommodating students with different learning styles to foster cooperative learning.
  4. Include and code different learning styles in lesson plans, making sure that all the students will work on an activity corresponding to their learning preferences.
  5. Encourage changes in student’s behaviours and foster guided style-stretching by incorporating strategy instruction into classroom activities.
  6. Prepare an ESL/EFL learning environment that welcomes and accommodates a variety of styles and cultures.
  7. Gather exciting displays reflecting different styles and cultures.
  8. Improve the physical setting, for example, by rearranging furniture or creating “learning corners” with different themes.
  9. Leave the classroom occasionally. Prepare an outdoor class or take the class somewhere else.
  10. Change the way style conflicts are viewed. Help the students to see style differences as opportunities to grow.

The authors conclude that “facing style differences directly and helping all participants become aware of their own styles –often related to cultural values- will enhance the creativity, inclusiveness, and effectiveness of the classroom experience” (p.455).

 

Posted in Bilingualism and Multilingualism | Leave a comment

“The role of styles and strategies in second language learning” (1989). R. Oxford

Posted on July 29, 2012 by maritza

 Oxford, R., (1989)  “The role of styles and strategies in second language learning”. (Digest)

This digest serves as a brief introduction to the notions of learning style and learning strategies. It is a summary of what has been researched on these topics between 1975 and 1989. Through the descriptions of the behaviour of six students of foreign languages and their learning preferences, Oxford defines learning styles and explains its most common dimensions. She also provides a general typology of learning strategies and discusses what aspects related to strategies have been studied the most, and what relations still need to be studied. The digest includes an introductory bibliography to the research and theorization on learning styles and strategies.

The notion of learning style is presented as a “blend of cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements” (p.2). It covers four aspects of the person: 1) patterns of mental functioning (cognitive style); 2) patterns of attitudes and interests determining what the individual will focus on in a learning situation; 3) tendency to seek situations compatible with one’s own learning patterns; and 4) tendency to use certain learning strategies and avoid others (p.2).

Oxford highlights the following dimensions of learning style, some of which are widely used in relation to learning strategies in SLA/ESL/EFL research: “Field independence-field dependence”, meaning the ability to identify key elements in a complex background; “analytical-global processing”, “cooperation-competition”, and “tolerance to ambiguity”. She also mentions “extraversion-introversion”, “sensing-intuition”, “thinking-feeling”, “judging-perceiving”, “leveling sharpening of detail”, “reflexivity-impulsivity” and “constricted-flexible thinking”.

Learning strategies are defined as “the often-conscious steps or behaviours used by language learners to enhance the acquisition, storage, retention, recall, and use of new information” (p.3). They are classified in: metacognitive techniques, affective strategies, social strategies, memory strategies and compensation strategies (p.4).

Both learning styles and learning strategies are highly influential in second language performance. Therefore, according to Oxford, strategy training should be part of regular classroom activities in order to improve students’ language performance (p.4). For these reasons, Oxford claims that teacher training should consider the awareness of learning styles and strategies in the teaching practice.

Posted in Bilingualism and Multilingualism | Leave a comment

“The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students” (1988). Elaine Horwitz

Posted on July 29, 2012 by maritza

Horwitz, E. K. (1988)  “The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students”. (Journal article)

Elaine Horwitz accepts the connection established by Wenden between student beliefs and learning strategies (p.292). However, she concentrates not on individual beliefs about language learning, but on cultural or social preconceptions, spread by the media or implicit in certain academic communities. Moreover, instead of showing the bright side of the relation between beliefs and study techniques, she suggests that some preconceived notions about language learning may limit learners’ performance in the classroom.

Horwitz’ study “attempts to determine the prevalence of certain common beliefs about language learning among typical groups of language learners” (p.284). She applied her Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) instrument to three groups of first semester language students at University of Texas. The population consisted of eighty students of German, sixty-three of French, and ninety-eight of Spanish. The BALLI is a thirty-four item questionnaire that assesses student beliefs in five areas: 1) difficulty of language learning; 2) foreign language aptitude; 3) the nature of language learning; 4) learning and communication strategies; and 5) motivations and expectations (p.284).

Some common beliefs mentioned in the study are: a) some languages are more difficult to learn than others, b) two years (or four terms) of study are enough to achieve fluency in a foreign language, c) the point of studying a language is to achieve accuracy, d) special aptitudes are required to learn a language, and e) achieving foreign language pronunciation is impossible for speakers of certain languages or cultural background. The study does not successfully show the prevalence of some beliefs according to a specific group of language students. It shows the general predominance of beliefs that might create conflict in the classroom if not detected in time.

The author indicates that pessimistic or discouraging beliefs lead to poor performance. She also notes that holding contradictory beliefs or the clash of a student’s expectations and his measured progress can cause anxiety or disappointment in the student.

In order to avoid a classroom of frustrated students, Horwitz proposes some advice for teachers: “To make learners aware of their own preconceived notions about language learning and their possible consequences, teachers should include discussions about the nature of language learning as a regular part of their instruction” (p.292). She also suggests that the instructional practice, as well as the evaluation of different tasks, should help the students to understand that language learning requires the practice of several skills. This is an attempt to fight beliefs such as learning a language is mainly to memorize vocabulary, or being able to translate word by word into English.

Horwitz joins Wenden in her conceptualization of a teacher as the explorer of his or her students’ beliefs. But, she also agrees with Holec (1981), by emphasizing the importance of eliminating preconceptions that might negatively interfere in the performance of the students.

Posted in Bilingualism and Multilingualism | Leave a comment