Individual Learner Differences in SLA 9781847694355

Citation preview

Individual Learner Differences in SLA

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editor: Professor David Singleton, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical findings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes fi nal-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers and teachers in general whose interests include a second language acquisition component. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editor: David Singleton

Individual Learner Differences in SLA

Edited by

Janusz Arabski and Adam Wojtaszek

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Individual Learner Differencesin SLA/Edited by Janusz Arabski and Adam Wojtaszek. Includes bibliographical references. I. Arabski, Janusz. II. Wojtaszek, Adam. P118.2.I53 2011 418.0071–dc23 2011028012 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-84769-434-8 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario, M3H 5T8, Canada. Copyright © 2011 Janusz Arabski, Adam Wojtaszek and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Techset Composition Ltd, Salisbury, UK. Printed and bound in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group.

Contents

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv J. Arabski and A. Wojtaszek Part 1: Background Assumptions 1 Individual Learner Differences and Instructed Language Learning: An Insoluble Conflict? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D. Wolff 2 Research into Language Learning Strategies: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 M. Pawlak Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy 3 Teachers’ Perceptions of Individual Differences in Turkish Primary School EFL Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 H. Bedir 4 Learning Autonomy Support by Foreign Language Teachers . . . . . 54 M. Stec and A. Studenska 5 Personality and Parenting Styles as Predictors of Self-Regulation in Foreign Language Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 A. Studenska Part 3: Learners’ Abilities in Strategy Application 6 The Development of Implicit Knowledge through Structured Input Activities: The Importance of Individual Perceptions Concerning Grammar Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 A. Mystkowska-Wiertelak 7 Awareness of Cognate Vocabulary and Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Polish Multilingual and Bilingual Advanced Learners of English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 A. Otwinowska-Kasztelanic v

vi

Individual Learner Differences in SLA

Part 4: Experienced Learners 8 A Study of Gender-Related Levels of Processing Anxieties over Three Years of Secondary Grammar School Instruction . . . . 129 E. Piechurska-Kuciel 9 Challenge or Threat? A Study of Perceived Self-Efficacy of Polish EFL Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 J. Bielska 10 Managing Criticism and Praise by Trainee Interpreters: Looking for Gender Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 A. Łyda, K. Warchał and A. Jackiewicz 11 Student Needs Assessment in Teaching English at the Tertiary Level: An Individual Learner Differences Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Z.P. Moz˙ ejko Part 5: Individual Character of Phonological Attainment 12 Regularity and Individual Variation in Native English and Polish Learners’ Wh-Question Suprasegmentals . . . . . . . . . . . 199 A. Porzuczek 13 Time-Limited Verbal Fluency Task with Polish−English Unbalanced Bilinguals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 A. Rojczyk 14 The Acquisition of English Vowel Length Differences before Word-Final Stops by Greek Learners of English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 E. Tsiartsioni Part 6: Focus on Language Skills: Reading and Writing 15 Individual Differences in Foreign Language Reading Comprehension: Gender and Topic Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 S. Ay and Ö.S¸. Bartan 16 Individual Differences in L2 Readers’ Strategic Behaviour while Performing Reading to Learn Tasks: A Case Study. . . . . . . . 259 H. Chodkiewicz 17 Current Views on Foreign Language Reading Motivation . . . . . . . 271 L. Piasecka 18 From Oral Input to Written Output: On Individual Differences in External Storing of Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 D. Gabrys´-Barker

Contents

vii

19 Accounting for One Student’s Failure and Another’s Success on a Written Academic Assignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 J. Zalewski 20 Online Revisions in FL Writing. General Rules and Individual Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 I. Kowal

Contributors Sıla Ay is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Ankara University, Turkey. She received her PhD on foreign language reading skills from Ankara University Foreign Language Teaching Department. Her research interests focus on individual differences in foreign language learning, language teaching methodology, reading skills and dyslexia. She is currently working for Tokyo Foreign Studies University as a visiting professor. Özgür S¸en Bartan has been teaching English for 10 years. Her teaching career began nine years ago, upon graduating from Hacettepe University, English Linguistics Department and then MA from Hacettepe University, Sociology Department. Her research interests are individual differences, developing writing proficiency and autonomy in foreign language learning. She is currently pursuing her PhD in Ankara University, Foreign Language Teaching Division. Hasan Bedir is a graduate of English Language Teaching (ELT) Department Faculty of Education, Çukurova University. He completed his MA in 1993 and PhD in 1998 at the same university. His postgraduate study was on the relation between culture and foreign language learning, and his PhD was on the role of cognitive strategies on reading comprehension ability. He has been working at the Faculty of Education, Çukurova University since 1993. He is mainly interested in factors affecting language learning and teaching, language learning strategies, critical thinking and educational research methods. He teaches courses such as Educational Research Methods, Teaching English to Young Learners and Approaches, Methods in Language Teaching at undergraduate level, Critical Thinking in ELT at MA and Current Trends in Teacher Education at PhD. Joanna Bielska is an Assistant Professor in the Institute of English at the University of Silesia, Poland, where she has been involved in language teacher education lecturing on theories of second language acquisition, research methods in applied linguistics and methodology of foreign language teaching. She has had a longstanding interest in the psychology of the language learner with special focus on the role of individual

ix

x

Individual Learner Differences in SLA

differences in second language acquisition. Her current work revolves around the theme of self-efficacy in language learning and teaching. She is the author of Between Psychology and Foreign Language Learning (2006). Halina Chodkiewicz is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Department of English, Maria-Curie Skłodowska University, Lublin, Poland. Her research interests focus on second/foreign language reading development and instruction, vocabulary learning and teaching, as well as integrating language and content instruction. She is the author of numerous papers and three books on issues of the development of reading skills in English as a foreign language. One of them reports on an experimental large-scale study on incidental vocabulary acquisition from the written context. Her recent research concerns advanced students’ strategy use in content-based reading tasks in EFL settings. Danuta Gabrys´-Barker is a Professor of English at the University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, where she lectures and supervises MA and PhD theses in applied linguistics and second language acquisition. She also works as a teacher trainer at Teacher Training College in Gliwice. Her main areas of interest are multilingualism (especially at the level of mental lexicon and syntax), neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics (modalities and learner profiles). As a teacher trainer she lectures on research methods in second language acquisition and Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) projects. Her major concern is the role of action research in teacher development. Professor Gabrys´-Barker has published over 70 articles nationally as well as internationally and a book Aspects of Multilingual Storage, Processing and Retrieval (University of Silesia Press, 2005). Recently she has edited a volume Morphosyntactic Issues in Second Language Acquisition (Multilingual Matters, 2008). A book Action Research in Teacher Development edited by her and published by University of Silesia Press is about to be released. Alina Jackiewicz is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of English of the University of Silesia, Poland. She holds a PhD in linguistics. Her research interests encompass syntax and semantics in the contrastive perspective, translation studies and European tertiary educational systems. Her recent works revolve round the phenomenon of agentlessness with special reference to English for Specific Purposes. Iwona Kowal is Assistant Professor of Psycholinguistics at Jagiellonian University in Cracow. Her research interests include psycholinguistic aspects of first and second language acquisition, the process of third language acquisition and the writing process in second language acquisition. She has published on acquisition of Polish and Swedish as first language, metalinguistic awareness in foreign language writing and acquisition of

Contributors

xi

Swedish as L3. She is also a co-editor (with P. Bukowski and G. PietrzakPorwisz) of Perspektiv på svenska språket och litteraturen and author of a Swedish–Polish and Polish–Swedish Dictionary. Andrzej Łyda is Professor of English at the Institute of English, University of Silesia, Sosnowiec. He is currently the Head of the Institute and the Head of the Department of Translation and Interpreting. His main areas of interest are translation and interpreting, academic discourse analysis and interactional linguistics. He holds PhD and post-PhD degrees (habilitation) in linguistics. His publications include over 50 articles and three books of which he is an author and co-author. He has been an editor of five books in the area of discourse analysis, applied linguistics and language and culture studies. He is presently working on phraseology of academic English. Zbigniew P. Moz˙ejko, PhD, is Assistant Professor at the University of Warsaw specialising in Content and Language Integrated Learning, pedagogical grammar and ELT teacher-training. His doctoral research concerned the interplay of language awareness and linguistic proficiency. His current interests focus on tokens of language advancedness and tertiary education. Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak received her doctoral degree in applied linguistics from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´. She is a teacher and a teacher trainer working at the English Department of the Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts of Adam Mickiewicz University in Kalisz as well as the Institute of Modern Languages of the State School of Higher Professional Education in Konin. Her main interests comprise, apart from teacher education, second language acquisition theory and research, language learning strategies, learner autonomy, form-focused instruction and motivation. Agnieszka Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (MA, PhD) is an Assistant Professor in the Institute of English Studies, Warsaw University. She graduated from Warsaw University in 1995 and received her doctoral degree from the same university in 2000. She specialises in ELT methodology and psycholinguistics. She has published a book on English influences on Polish based on a corpus study, a dictionary of Polish–English cognates, and a number of articles. She co-edited a book on Content and Language Integrated Learning in Polish schools, and co-authored three series of ELT course books for Polish primary and secondary schools. She is also a teacher trainer and an author of several school syllabuses. Mirosław Pawlak is Professor of English in the English Department at the Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts of Adam Mickiewicz University in

xii

Individual Learner Differences in SLA

Kalisz, Poland. His main areas of interest are second language acquisition theory and research, form-focused instruction, classroom discourse, learner autonomy, communication and learning strategies, grammar learning strategies, individual learner differences and pronunciation teaching. His recent publications include The Place of Form-Focused Instruction in the Foreign Language Classroom (2006, Adam Mickiewicz University Press) and several edited collections on learner autonomy, language policies of the Council of Europe, form-focused instruction and individual learner differences. Liliana Piasecka (PhD, hab.) is an academic teacher, applied linguist, researcher and teacher trainer at the Department of English, University of Opole, Poland. Her research interests include second/foreign language acquisition issues, especially L2 lexical development, relations between L1 and L2 reading, gender and identity. She is also involved in training teachers of English as a foreign language, hence her concern for the prospective teachers’ linguistic expertise, sensitivity to their learners’ needs, and reflectivity about their own teaching practices. She has published two books, over 40 articles, and co-edited a collection of essays. She has supervised over 60 MA theses. Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel (PhD, hab.) is Assistant Professor at the Institute of English, Opole University, Poland, where she teaches second language acquisition and ELT courses, and supervises MA and PhD theses. Her main research interests include the role of affect in foreign language learning (language anxiety, willingness to communicate, self-efficacy, etc.), and special learning needs (mild retardation, autism or developmental dyslexia). Among her recent publications is a book on language anxiety (Language Anxiety in Secondary Grammar School Students, 2008), and research papers exploring the educational context of the Polish secondary grammar school, published in Poland and abroad. Andrzej Porzuczek is an Assistant Professor at the University of Silesia, Institute of English. His PhD dissertation, accomplished in 1998, dealt with Polish learners’ perception of standard British English vowels. His main research areas comprise foreign language acquisition, interlanguage phonology and practical phonetics pedagogy. Currently, he is working on prosodic unit timing in the English pronunciation of Polish learners. He has presented papers at several international conferences on phonetics and second language acquisition. His recent publications are devoted to prosodic timing in advanced Polish learners’ English pronunciation and teaching practical English phonetics to Polish learners. Arkadiusz Rojczyk is an Assistant Professor at the University of Silesia in Poland. His research concentrates on production and perception of second

Contributors

xiii

language speech, speech analysis and resynthesis. He is currently working on spectral and temporal parameters in perception and production of English word stress by Polish learners. He is also a co-author of a grant from Polish Ministry of Science for devising a new course in English pronunciation for Polish learners. Maria Stec (PhD) works in Centre of Foreign Languages at the University of Silesia in Cieszyn, Poland. She is a teacher-trainer, ELT author of 14 articles, member of the European Evaluation Society and translator. Her main areas of research interest are learning autonomy, teacher education for teaching young learners, second language acquisition, syllabus design, syllabus implementation and evaluation. Anna Studenska (PhD) works in Ethnology and Educational Science Department of Silesian University, Poland. She is the author of the book on foreign language learning strategies and Learning Autonomy Inventory (IAU). Her main areas of research interest are measurement of learning autonomy and teacher support of students’ self-regulatory behaviours. Eleni Tsiartsioni is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of English, in Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Her thesis investigates L2 phonological acquisition and pronunciation teaching among Greek EFL learners, focusing on speech rhythm and the stop voicing system. She holds an MPhil in Applied Linguistics from Trinity College Dublin and a BA Hons in English Language and Literature from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She has presented papers in various international conferences and published essays in peer-reviewed conference proceedings volumes. She currently works as a full-time teacher of English at a secondary school in Greece. Krystyna Warchał teaches academic writing at the Institute of English of the University of Silesia, Poland. She holds a PhD in text linguistics. Her research interests include stylistics, sociolinguistics and translation studies. Her current focus is on genre studies, EAP and linguistic modality. Dieter Wolff is Professor Emeritus for Applied Psycholinguistics at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal (Germany). His main research interests are language processing in a second language, language teaching and learning in instructed contexts and bilingual education. For six years he was Vice President of AILA (Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée). He was co-editor of three journals on applied linguistics and foreign language teaching. Currently, he is advisor to several European governments with respect to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). He is also involved in a number of European projects, for example in the EU-funded CCN (CLIL Cascade Network) and a CLIL curriculum

xiv

Individual Learner Differences in SLA

development project funded by the Council of Europe. His list of publications includes 11 books and more than 200 articles in scientific journals and similar publications. His latest book Fremdsprachenlernen als Konstruktion: Grundlagen einer konstruktivistischen Fremdsprachendidaktik was published by Peter Lang in 2002 and re-edited in 2009. Jan Zalewski is Professor of English at the University of Opole, Poland. He received his MA in English philology from the University of Wrocław, Poland, and his PhD in English studies from Illinois State University. He is the author of two books (Enhancing Linguistic Input in Answer to the Problem of Incomplete Second Language Acquisition and Epistemology of the Composing Process) and the editor of three. His current research interests focus on the acquisition of academic discourse in English as a foreign language.

Introduction J. ARABSKI and A. WOJTASZEK

The significance of individual differences in language learning has been recognised as an important area of research for quite some time now. Additionally, the early years of the 21st century have witnessed a perceptible shift towards individualisation in educational settings, especially in the area of language instruction. No wonder publications in the area flourish, supplying teachers and researchers alike with an abundant resource basis of enlightening ideas and practicable solutions. However, in spite of this affluence, the thirst for more remains unquenched. The present volume responds to this requirement, offering a broad selection of contributions, touching upon a wide array of issues subsumed under the heading of individual learner differences (ILD) in language acquisition and performance. Traditionally, the area comprises three major sub-fields: learning styles, learning strategies and affective variables, but other issues, such as learning aptitude, gender, culture, age and other demographic variables frequently reappear in many publications (Ehrman et al., 2003). Dörnyei (2005) provides a comprehensive overview of those issues in his influential and widely quoted textbook, divided into chapters on personality, aptitude, motivation, learning and cognitive styles, learning strategies and such other issues as anxiety or self-esteem. Similar themes are also discussed and reviewed in Robinson (2002). All of them are represented in the chapters of the present volume. The organisation of the book follows a grouping principle based on a division into several topic areas, related to a number of sub-fields under the ILD umbrella. It is definitely not exhaustive in its scope, but undeniably very rich in variability of content. The first part, more theoretically oriented in comparison with the others, consists of two contributions. Dieter Wolff takes up the theme of the apparently insoluble conflict between the necessity of acknowledging individual learner needs and the organisational principles of institutionalised language instruction. These two seemingly irreconcilable principles are discussed in the light of recent publications in the field. Mirosław Pawlak’s contribution, on the other xv

xvi

Individual Learner Differences in SLA

hand, concentrates on the sub-field of language learning strategies, providing the reader with a comprehensive overview of research articles related to the subject, followed by suggestions pertaining to new developments. An important aspect of catering for individual learner needs is teachers’ involvement in developing learner autonomy. This issue is the main theme of the second part, where Hasan Bedir, Anna Studenska and Maria Stec present results of their research on the potential role of teachers and parents in shaping learners’ independence and initiative, also including selected psychological variables in the investigation. They stress that proper diagnosis of ILD is a necessary prerequisite on the road to development of learner autonomy, which was earlier also advocated by Ehrman et al. (2003: 324−325). The third part of the book takes a closer look at successful strategy application by learners of English as a foreign language in institutionalised settings. Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak applies an experimental scheme to compare the effectiveness of reception-based and productionoriented grammar instruction, on the basis of the analysis of the participants’ explicit and implicit knowledge, while Agnieszka Otwinowska-Kasztelanic focuses on the acquisition of lexis, demonstrating how advanced learners of English employ such strategies as the exploitation of cognates or their knowledge of other languages. The fourth part continues the theme of strategy application, this time not only in instructional settings, but also in situations where the acquired L2 knowledge has to be put to practice. It also widens the scope by making references not only to strategies themselves, but also to such issues as anxiety management, self-efficacy perception and needs diagnosis. A longitudinal diagnostic perspective is represented by Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel’s and Zbigniew Moz˙ejko’s contributions, who investigate learners’ feedback on secondary and tertiary levels, respectively. Joanna Bielska, on the other hand, concentrates on the perception of self-efficacy in young teachertrainees who are diagnosed in the situations where their L2 expertise has to be employed in the role of a language instructor, while Andrzej Łyda, Krystyna Warchał and Alina Jackiewicz investigate strategic behaviour of advanced learners performing as interpreters. Two of the chapters (Pechurska-Kuciel and Łyda, Warchał & Jackiewicz) additionally relate the findings to the variable of subjects’ gender. The fifth part, probably the most uniform and homogeneous in its scope, deals with individual variation in L2 phonological attainment. It focuses more on the manifestations of learner variability in production, rather than in the use of strategies or in style profiles. The exemplification comes from Polish (Andrzej Porzuczek, Arkadiusz Rojczyk) and Greek learners (Eleni Tsiartsioni) of English. The first of these chapters concentrates on suprasegmentals (mainly intonation), the second one combines

Introduction

xvii

aspects of phonemic and lexical knowledge and the third investigates the acquisition of the vowel system. The final part consists of six chapters, with the first three related to the reading skill, and the remaining three related to the writing ability. The chapters focused on reading investigate the variable of learners’ gender (Sıla Ay and Özgür S¸en Bartan), learners’ strategic task behaviour (Halina Chodkiewicz) and the issue of motivation (Liliana Piasecka), in this way touching upon three important constructs in the investigations of learner variability. The writing-related chapters are linked not only by their focus on a particular skill, but also by the common denominator of strategy application as the most important contributor to the learners’ success or failure. Danuta Gabrys´-Barker’s contribution provides an account based on advanced learners’ note taking during an academic lecture, in order to reveal strategies applied by the subjects in their information processing and organisation. Jan Zalewski also uses the products of learners’ written performance – this time an academic assignment paper – to discover a posteriori the determinants of writers’ success or failure. Finally, Iwona Kowal demonstrates how new software can assist in the discoveries related to learner strategy application in the process of written work revision. The author uses a computer programme registering the keyboard activity, thus allowing the researcher to follow on a step-by-step basis all the changes applied to the initial draft by the writer, which in turn can be used as evidence of particular strategy application. The editors hope that the inclusion of as many as 20 chapters, encompassing a wide range of issues under a broadly defined umbrella of ILD, will guarantee that many readers with different research backgrounds and with different practical experience will all find something of particular interest among the contributions. The volume should also provide a useful guide for young researchers and students of Applied Linguistics and Language Education in their choices pertaining to the selection of area of specialisation and research methodology application. Finally, the contributions add many valuable insights and ideas to the fastgrowing body of knowledge in this rapidly expanding field of investigation, following the appeals and suggestions of many leading authorities in the area. References Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ehrman, M.E., Leaver, B.L. and Oxford, R.L. (2003) A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System 31, 313−330. Robinson, P. (ed.) (2002) Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Part 1

Background Assumptions

Chapter 1

Individual Learner Differences and Instructed Language Learning: An Insoluble Conflict? D. WOLFF

Introduction For quite some time now, second language acquisition (SLA) researchers have shown interest in the individual differences that can be identified in the learning processes of learners acquiring a second, a third or a fourth language. Researchers have come up with a large number of such features, which reach from differences that are identifiable fairly easily, such as age or gender, to features that are more difficult to grasp, such as motivation and learner preferences. They have shown that these differences influence the results of second language learning processes and lead to different linguistic abilities and skills in the foreign language. Although these findings have been taken into account by theoreticians, they are not favoured so much by practitioners in the foreign language classroom. This is rather disappointing, because the empirical evidence that such differences exist should be sufficient to support new proposals of approaching practical language teaching issues. In fact, in the mainstream foreign language classroom, teachers focus on the abilities and skills of a virtual learner who represents the average norm – Helmke (2008: 8) calls him the ‘imaginary average pupil’ – and do not accept that learners are different in approaching language learning tasks. This is true not only for the foreign language classroom but also for all the other subjects taught in school as well: It leads to large numbers of students being left alone because they do not fit into this hypothetical construct of an average norm that has never been described or specified by anyone. The learning abilities of the individual student are assessed by most of the teachers on the basis of this imaginary norm. Individual learner differences are taken into account by foreign language teachers only marginally, although 3

4

Part 1: Background Assumptions

the terms ‘learner orientation’ and ‘individualisation’ are not unknown to language teaching methodology any more. So my claim at this stage is – maybe somewhat daringly – that the lack of considering the individual learner and his distinctive learner features is not the result of too large numbers of pupils in the classroom, as teachers generally maintain, but rather results from the unconditional belief in the hypothetical norm. Despite all the progress that has been made in foreign language teaching during the last 20 years, despite the introduction of communicative language teaching and its different models, the mainstream language classroom is still determined by a form of classroom discourse that English foreign language theoreticians describe – somewhat mockingly – as teachercontrolled interaction, a form of discourse which is planned and directed by the teacher and gives the students only the opportunity to react. During the interaction the teacher assesses the student’s utterances only with respect to their compatibility with his own views (language and content wise) and rejects them if they do not correspond. In a lesson that is designed in this way, the teacher will rarely take care of the individual student. I do not want to conceal the fact that teaching and learning are different in some schools, but in general they take place in an environment in which the teacher directs and controls the students in their learning processes. Only in the context of the so-called ‘internal differentiation’ (in German Binnendifferenzierung), ideas of individualisation are put into practice, which relate to our knowledge of individual learner differences. Overstating my argument one could say that teacher-controlled interaction is the approach that teachers choose, because it fulfils their expectations with respect to the hypothetical norm and keeps alive their beliefs in the imaginary average student. In my contribution I would like to come up with some ideas as to how this problem can be dealt with and how it might even be solved in the long run. I will first discuss, very briefly, the concept of individual learner differences. In the second part of my chapter I will take up some fundamental assumptions of cognitive psychology that are, in my opinion, suited to clarify the aspect of individuality inherent in this concept. In the third part I will show that in foreign language teaching we require approaches that do justice to the individual differences of each learner and are thus fundamentally different from the ones commonly used in the classroom. The assumptions discussed in the second part will be helpful here. In the last part I will sketch out such an approach.

Individual Learner Differences: A Very Brief Description of the State of the Art There can be no doubt that humans learn languages in a similar way. In the 1970s and 1980s of the last century it could be shown that both the

Individual Learner Differences and Instructed Language Learning

5

acquisition of the first and of a second (third or fourth) language can be described as a similar sequence of specific stages (for first language acquisition cf. Brown, 1973; for SLA Dulay et al., 1982). For both types of acquisition individual differences are noticeable, which are accounted for by individual learner features. It is interesting to note that explanations are available only for SLA. Differences in early first language acquisition are explained on the basis of the child’s socialisation and bodily inflictions such as deafness, blindness and motor deficits. For the later stages of first language acquisition research does not seem to exist with respect to other individual differences. For SLA the number of individual learner differences mentioned in the literature is much higher; they include cognitive, social and psychological features. I will come back to this issue in somewhat more detail in the beginning of the next section. In my short summary of the individual learner differences discussed in SLA research, I will particularly refer to the works of Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), Skehan (1991), Ellis (1994) Naiman et al. (1995) and Grotjahan (1998). When looking in more detail at the taxonomies that were developed in SLA research to account for individual learner differences, it becomes obvious that they are very similar and can be distinguished only according to the different orders they are presented in or the lack of one or the other category. Ellis (1994: 522), for example, draws a distinction between seven categories: beliefs about language learning, affective state, age, aptitude, learning style, motivation and personality. In the introductory handbook by Lightbown and Spada (1999), which refers to Naiman et al. (1995), a category intelligence is introduced that does not exist in Ellis’ taxonomy but is part of the category personality, which is, however, a category of its own in the handbook. Motivation, beliefs about language learning and age are part of their categorisation as well; motivation, however, is part of attitudes. A new category – learner preferences – is introduced; its definition is very similar to the category learning style in Ellis’ taxonomy. The very detailed taxonomy developed by Larsen-Freeman and Long already in 1991 is clearly an expansion of the two very similar categorisations just discussed. The authors provide six categories, some of which are further subdivided: age, sociopsychological factors (subdivided into motivation and attitudes), personality (subdivided into self-esteem, extro-/introvertedness, fear, empathy, timidity, cognitive style etc.), hemispheric specialisation, learning strategies, other factors (gender). Ellis is not satisfied with these categorizations; he calls them ‘often vague and overlapping in different ways’ (Ellis, 1994: 524). It is interesting to note that Larsen-Freeman and Long introduce a category that does not appear in Ellis’ taxonomy as an individual learner feature, that is learning strategies. Ellis deals with learning strategies as a specific learner characteristic that operates on the basis of individual

6

Part 1: Background Assumptions

learner differences and situational factors (Ellis, 1994: 530), but is not part of his taxonomy of learner differences. He regards learning strategies as dynamic individual characteristics the choice of which decides on the success of the learning process. This is undoubtedly a valid interpretation that does not take into account, however, that the development of learning strategies itself is determined by individual learner features (e.g. sociopsychological factors or the learner’s personality). On the whole, it becomes clear when comparing these classificatory systems that the concept of individual learner differences is not so well established that it could be called a safe concept. The list of categories is open and is characterised by overlaps which, although he is critical about it, also show in Ellis’ categorisation. It is also surprising that individual learner differences are not at all focused upon in SLA research for the time being: The most important research is found in the latter half of the last century. In my summary it does not become clear that individual learner features could be differentiated according to one important aspect: the way in which they are influenced by the environment. However, this aspect is not being discussed in the literature, although it cannot be assumed that individual learner differences should be considered as static predispositions that are available in the same form, unchanged, over the lifespan. I would rather believe that they are features that develop dynamically in the process of interaction with the environment. However, there are differences with respect to the strength of the environmental influences. A feature like hemispheric specialisation is less accessible to the environment than a feature like motivation. This is probably true as well for a feature like gender compared to attitudes. But what about aptitude and intelligence? Are they less accessible to the environment than, for example, the feature memory? This question could be asked as well with regard to cognitive style. Does cognitive style change during socialisation or does it belong to the unchangeable predispositions that humans bring along when they are born? I have not found an answer to any of these questions although I believe that answers are very important also from the point of view of foreign language teaching and learning. In the following section I will try to deal with this issue at least theoretically.

Individual Learner Differences: Some Considerations with Respect to Cognitive and Learning Psychology I mentioned already that individual learner differences do not play an important role in explaining the acquisition of a person’s first language but SLA has dealt with them quite extensively. This fairly surprising fact can be explained in at least two different ways: It is possible that individual learner differences have no influence on the acquisition of the first language and are therefore not taken into consideration. Equally possible, on the other hand, is the interpretation that individual learner differences

Individual Learner Differences and Instructed Language Learning

7

already exist in a rudimentary form when the child is born and that they develop dynamically through interaction with the environment. I rather tend to take up the second position and will try to explain it. I will make use of the results of cognitive psychology and cognitive learning theory to support my explanation (for the following cf. Wolff, 2002). It is not necessary to discuss in detail here the main ideas of cognitive and constructivist psychology; just let me remind you of the following: Cognitivists and constructivists regard human beings as information processors who are able to process and to store, in interacting with the environment, both declarative or factual and procedural knowledge, that is knowledge about processes and sequences of events (abilities and skills). It is important to keep in mind that both knowledge and skills are stored in different forms in the human mind: as concepts and propositions (in which factual knowledge is stored), and as schematic structures (in which both knowledge and skills are stored). Schematic structures exist in the form of scripts, schemata, frames, plans and so on (Wolff, 2002: 56; Rumelhart & Norman, 1978). It is also important to remember that all new concepts and schemata alter the existing memory structures: The already-existing knowledge is modified, expanded, generalised, reduced and so forth on the basis of the incoming new constructions. Here I cannot deal with the complex cognitive operations responsible for this; doubtlessly they are driven by strategies that guide processes of both comprehension and learning. These few remarks on cognitive psychology and its assumptions are sufficient to make the following arguments understandable. But before I can explain the changes in individual learner features, I will have to move to another field of cognitive psychology; I will have to bring back to your memory what cognitive psychology has to say about nature and nurture, that is the relationship between predispositions and environment. As we all know, linguists and psychologists have made interesting assumptions with respect to this topic. Cognitive psychologists argue that a human being cannot be considered to be a tabula rasa at birth: while Piaget (1979) takes the image of the noyeau fixe to account for the human’s predisposition which by interacting with the environment becomes an increasingly complex and efficient instrument to effect these interactions, Neisser (1979) assumes that even the unborn child already has some innate instruments enabling it to perform such interactive processes (instruments that include rudimentary cognitive schemata enabling the child to control its perceptions). And as we all know, Chomsky attributes to the newborn child an innate language learning capacity. If these assumptions are correct, it is possible to explain developmental processes in individual learner features and even a differentiating dynamic in the development of different individual features. The pre-condition is that all individual learner features mentioned in the literature are principally dynamic, that is they change, and the changes are dependent on the interaction with the environment (cf. Piaget & Neisser). The

8

Part 1: Background Assumptions

experiences that humans gain in the interaction with the environment and that make them change their concepts, propositions and schemata also change the individual features that characterise them as learners, because they are stored in schematic structures as well. A new learning experience makes them change a specific schema: For example, they change a schematic structure in which their beliefs about language learning are stored when they realise that a certain strategy does not work when dealing with a specific learning problem. Similarly, motivation or the lack of motivation are driven by the learner’s experiences with his environment and can be modified when other experiences are gained. It is a decisive factor, however, that each individual not only during his cognitive development, but also during his adult life, is confronted with different aspects of reality. Due to their social origin, some people live in fairly closed social contexts; others live in rich environments in which they have many different experiences. Moreover, every individual belongs to one or more social groups, lives in a big or a small family and has a specific professional life. In all these environments he takes up his role as information processor, interacts with his environment and constantly modifies his experiences with this environment. His knowledge base changes continuously and this is true as well, of course, in relation to all the features that characterise him as a learner. Every human being pictures his environment differently, and this individual picture develops in the interaction with the environment that he effects with his individual knowledge and skills. This is the reason why individual learner features are different. There are probably no two individuals who dispose of identical learner features (Müller, 1996). There is still another question that needs to be discussed in this context: Do the different individual learner features mentioned in the research literature react more or less strongly to environmental influences? It can be assumed that some features are more open to change and others less so. Learning beliefs, affective state, motivation and learning are more strongly exposed to changes due to the environment compared to language aptitude, personality, intelligence age and gender. The latter group can rather be assigned to the noyeau fixe, taking up Piaget’s terminology, that is the cognitive equipment the individual is born with. But even here, changes can be assumed, especially when focusing on the factor personality. Language aptitude and intelligence, when they are discussed in this context, lead to ideological trench warfare and not to any empirically valid arguments.

Necessity of a Different Approach in Institutionalised Language Learning My central question in this chapter, namely in what way the conflict between individual learner differences and institutionalised language

Individual Learner Differences and Instructed Language Learning

9

learning can be solved, can be focused upon more clearly now. I start out from the assumption discussed in the last section that every human being – dependent on his individual and dynamically growing set of learner features – processes the multiform world around him independently and in different ways and thus creates an individual picture of this world. I believe that this assumption includes important indications for the organisation of teaching and learning. When transferring this assumption from cognitive psychology into the pedagogical reality, it becomes clear that the imaginary average pupil who still plays such an important part in the teacher’s methodological approach cannot be maintained as a model: the homogeneous classroom, the traditional frontal teaching methodology and the closed world of the school cannot do justice to the individual differences of each learner; they render impossible autonomous knowledge processing and learning and individual guidance that are the guidelines of modern pedagogical thinking. Individual learner differences, which are to a large extent features that operate on all and not only foreign language learning processes in some way, enforce new methodological approaches in our schools. Only if we give the learner opportunities to bring into play his individual competences and skills will successful learning processes take place. And only if the teacher acknowledges the learning processes of his students and does not insist on his omniscience, that is only if the famous Nürnberg funnel disappears for good, will we be ready for such a change. Foreign language teaching need not turn back as Wilhelm Vietor has postulated more than a hundred years ago, but it needs to move forward in his line and needs to adapt its methodological concepts to the results of SLA research and of modern cognitive and constructivist theories. A large number of highly impressive projects that are taking place at schools in Germany and in many other European countries show that this is possible (cf. e.g. a report by the German weekly DIE ZEIT in February 2009). And the undisputed results of the Waldorf-, Montessori- and Freinetpedagogy in which individualisation and differentiation play an important role show that it is possible to do justice to individual learner differences in institutionalised learning environments. What are the parameters that make it possible to uncover the differences between rather traditional language teaching and an approach that does account for the individual differences of learners and their competences? I think there are at least six parameters that have to be taken into consideration when analysing institutionalised language teaching: learning contents, learning aims, the learning environment, social forms of learning, learning strategies and the evaluation of learning results (Wolff, 2003). In the following, I will focus on four of these parameters and characterise them with respect to traditional foreign language teaching to make clear the necessity of changing this approach in the light of my assumptions with regard to individual learner differences. In the fi nal

10

Part 1: Background Assumptions

section I will show in which way these parameters can be defined in a teaching/learning approach that takes into consideration modern learning psychological criteria. I will begin with learning content. Traditional language learning is based on contents that are not very attractive for the students. This is true, in particular, for the materials used that are rarely more than the traditional textbooks, maybe enriched with CDs or DVDs. The textbooks are filled with contents that are chosen by textbook authors and are often hardly compatible with the students’ interests; most of the texts are simplified and often follow a grammatical, rarely a pragmatic progression. Authentic texts are not very frequent, at least in the early school years. Later on this changes, but texts are still accessed from the position of the teacher who does not consider that the learner intends to make use of his own knowledge and experiences when processing a text. The learning objectives in the foreign language classroom are as fixed as the contents. The global learning aims can be found in the curricula, more detailed learning aims in the textbooks, which not only provide teachers and learners with texts but also lay down what aims are to be reached in working with a specific text. In my understanding, a learning environment encompasses the classroom and the activities that take place there. The latter are usually strongly linked to the activities offered in the textbook. Thus, the textbook dominates all teaching/learning processes in the traditional classroom. Neither the structure of the school system, its rigidity, nor the authority of the teacher is put into question. Decisions are made by the teacher; the learner is not involved and does not have to take any responsibility. All forms of cooperation between teachers and learners are subsumed under the heading social forms of learning. Here we are mainly concerned with the teacher–learner interaction and the discourse taking place in the classroom. In traditional language teaching the teacher takes up the role of the omniscient and omnipotent designer of everything taking place in the classroom. He directs the interaction in such a way that it corresponds to the learning aims set by him. Discourse follows the pattern analysed already in Halliday and Hasan (1978): Initiation (I) – Response (R) – Feedback (F). The teacher controls discourse with the help of discourse strategies that make classroom interaction a transactional discourse with a few interactional elements. The teacher controls discourse so that it does not move into a direction that does not suit his/her preparation. The role of the student in the interaction is reduced to answering the questions of the teacher who leads her/him to results defi ned beforehand. Wilfully, one could call frontal teaching of this type a kind of manipulation; to call it ‘fragend-entwickelnd’ is simply an exaggeration. Other forms of interaction such as pair or group work are used only rarely in the traditional classroom.

Individual Learner Differences and Instructed Language Learning

11

This short sketch of some of the parameters constituting traditional foreign language teaching and learning not only in Germany shows that individual learner features do not play a role in the classroom. One could argue even further and assert that the learner himself as an abstract entity is irrelevant in the classroom. I think this becomes particularly clear when looking at the predominant form of social interaction in which the learner has not the slightest chance to bring his individual learner features into play. In describing the same parameters from the perspective of a modern learning model I will show in the last part of my contribution that it is possible to design the teaching/learning process in institutionalised learning contexts in a way in which individual learner features are taken into consideration.

A Teaching/Learning Model and a Possible Realisation in the Classroom My slightly exaggerated description of the four constituent elements of teaching/learning processes from the perspective of main stream language teaching should have made clear, however, that this way of teaching cannot do justice to the individual learner features, that is the differences between learners. Traditional teaching, which is still common in most schools, cannot solve the conflict between institutionalised learning and individual learner differences. We have to rely on teaching/learning models that are better suited to do this. In the following section I will describe such a model and then take up an approach that makes it possible to make use of the main concepts of this model. Learner autonomy as a teaching/learning model Research in cognitive psychology, neurobiology and within the constructivist paradigm begin to influence our pedagogical thinking more and more. Although the often-heard slogan ‘construction instead of instruction’ must be considered as an unacceptable simplification, there can be no doubt that one of the fundamental concepts of cognitive– constructivist thinking – that is human cognition and human learning are constructive operations that the learner controls and carries out to a large extent autonomously – has changed or will change at least theoretically our thinking about teaching and learning in institutionalised contexts. This change in our learning theoretical paradigm even begins to influence practical teaching. In particular, this can be observed in one teaching/ learning model known as learner autonomy. Theoretically, learner autonomy relies on theoretical assumptions of cognitive psychology and constructivism although the practitioners who developed the model at the

12

Part 1: Background Assumptions

time did not know about this. I cannot deal with learner autonomy extensively in this context (cf. however Little, 1991); I would like to sketch out, however, on the basis of the parameters used above the fundamental assumptions of this model. Let me first add that learner autonomy was developed in the context of foreign language teaching and learning, but can be attributed as a general methodological concept to all subjects taught. Learning content must be seen from a new angle when taking into account the constructivist paradigm. From learning theoretical research we know that learners construct knowledge on the basis of their subjective experiential knowledge. Confronting them with pre-defined, simplified and graded content like in a traditional classroom or a traditional textbook will most often deter them from relating this content to their own individual knowledge, which is, of course, different in case of each learner. Learning content must rather be represented in all its complexity to give individual learners the chance to assimilate their own knowledge with the knowledge to be acquired. Consequently, providing a large variety of authentic materials related to a specific learning item is more helpful than a textbook with its restricted content. Learners can participate in collecting such materials and can thus decide by themselves what materials they want to work with. Within learner autonomy learners must be enabled to define their own learning objectives. This is only possible if the learning objectives introduced in the classroom are credible for the learner. A credible learning objective is one that the learner can identify with, that is recognise its importance for his own learning process and his own life. Only if the learning objective is convincing in this sense does the learner get involved in the learning process. A learning environment influenced by the constructivist paradigm must be organised in such a way that the learning content can be embedded into it convincingly and what has been learned can also be used. This means that both teachers and learners must participate in the design and organisation of such a classroom. Decisions must be taken jointly and students must understand that they are also responsible when a project or a task is not successfully completed. Activities must be developed, which correspond to different learning styles and different beliefs about learning, activities that take into account the different personalities of the learners, their gender and age. The learning context should be organised similar to a research laboratory in real life. Clearly, it is neither possible to choose materials deliberately in such a way that they take into account learner differences, nor is it possible to construct materials in such a way that they aim at different learner features. The learning environment must be rich both with respect to materials and the activities so that the learner can use his individual learner features.

Individual Learner Differences and Instructed Language Learning

13

If learning is socially mediated – as constructivist theories maintain – it is necessary to reflect on the consequences this has for the classroom. Traditional forms of classroom work (frontal teaching) do not fit with such a concept. Instead, other forms of social co-operation must be made use of, particularly group work. Not to be misunderstood, learners undoubtedly need help in their learning processes – Mercer (1995) makes use of the term ‘guided construction of knowledge’; but help should not turn into manipulation, as it often does in traditional language teaching. Changing social forms of learning also means changing the teacher– learner interaction, making it an open interaction in which the learners participate on the same level in the interaction and are allowed to express their own thoughts and ideas. Only if the learners may include their own experiences into the classroom discourse will they be willing to learn. In this context their individual differences play an important role. In a balanced interaction learners will articulate their ideas much more freely, they will look at content much more critically and will thus process content much more deeply than in a teacher-directed classroom (DaltonPuffer, 2007). I think that these few principles inherent in the teaching/learning model called learner autonomy show that it is possible to design a classroom in such a way that the individual learner is able to use his specific learner features to learn efficiently. Table 1.1 have put these features together and set them against the traditional approach. CLIL as an approach to realise the principles of learner autonomy Content and language integrated learning has been introduced recently as a common term for a number of similar approaches in Europe to teach content subjects through a foreign language. A language that is a foreign language for the learner is used to teach a content subject such as history or geography. Undoubtedly, CLIL can be handled in a very traditional way in the classroom, but on the other hand its potential to realise principles of learner autonomy and thus also to account for individual learner features is very high. The four parameters that I have employed to describe teaching/learning in the classroom will be used again here to describe CLIL as a concrete approach to individualised learning (Wolff, 2007). I will begin with learning content. As we have seen, approaches committed to the pedagogical aim of learner autonomy favour less structured, rich learning content to help learners relate their previous knowledge to the new knowledge they are expected to acquire. Such learning content is quite difficult to provide for the language classroom, however, and teachers and learners often fall back on the stereotypical topics of the traditional classroom. The integration of content subjects can be of great help here.

14

Part 1: Background Assumptions

Table 1.1 Traditional and autonomous teaching/learning models Traditional language teaching

Learner autonomy

Learning contents Usually textbook contents, chosen by the textbook writers, often simplified, rarely authentic materials

Rich and authentic materials chosen jointly by students and teachers

Learning aims

Learning aims established by curriculum and textbook

Learning aims are established jointly by teachers and learners to involve learners in the learning processes

Learning environment

Activities are textbookoriented, decisions are taken by the teacher, students have no responsibilities

Activities which account for different learning styles, focus on different personalities and on different age levels. All decisions about activities are taken jointly by teachers and learners

Social forms of learning

Teacher-controlled interaction in the classroom. No negotiation of meaning but manipulation by the teacher

Open teacher–learner interactions, students become co-designers of classroom activities

Geography or history provide rich learning content for the classroom – content that is real and not fictitious and thus is more motivating than that usually dealt with in language classrooms even if learners are free to choose what they want to work on. The learning contents of most content subjects are what could be called ‘realia’, that is facts and processes of the real world, and thus appear much more relevant than the often pseudoreal contents of the language classroom. According to the second concept discussed above, learners should be able to define their own learning objectives. The learner is expected to set for himself the more global and the more specific goals of his learning. It seems very helpful for the learner if his decision-making processes can take place in a CLIL context. Such a context is more closely related to the learner’s individual experiences than a language learning context. It is easier for the learner to specify objectives like ‘I would like to know more about the deserts in Africa’ or ‘I would like to know more about fish and why they can swim so long under water’ than to define complex linguistic objectives that are difficult for him to understand. This does not in the least exclude, of course, that learners also learn to defi ne linguistic

Individual Learner Differences and Instructed Language Learning

15

objectives. Defining content subject objectives will help learners to define linguistic objectives. In classrooms oriented towards learner autonomy, the learning environment is created by the cooperation between students and the teacher. Together they set up a kind of learning laboratory in which they experiment and do research and thus deal with their learning content (the target language and the target language culture) in a motivating way. However, the question arises here as well whether experimentation and research are not more realistic and more motivating for the students if they deal with concrete topics from the field of geography or history and work, let us say, with temperature charts or historical maps. Research and experimentation can also be carried out with language, of course, but a learning laboratory lends itself much more readily to investigation in social and natural sciences. The content subject makes research and experimentation more realistic than a language. In a way, experimentation with language can be prepared through more realistic research in the content subject. In the beginning it is easier to do research in a content subject than in a language. In learner autonomy the most accepted social form of learning is group work. In an autonomous classroom, which is regarded as a research laboratory, occasions for group work are much more numerous. It is clear that content subjects, with their rich potential for research and experimentation, add a new dimension to group work. They give it authenticity; one could even go as far as to say that content subjects enforce group work in the classroom.

Final Remarks I think it has become clear from what I said that it is possible to do justice to individual learner features. To be able to do so it is necessary, however, to change the parameters of traditional language teaching and to design the classroom in such a way that learners can really make use of their individual competences and skills. This seems easier than it really is: ‘More than a hundred years of reform pedagogy – from Jenaplan to Montessori and Waldorf – were not able to change the traditional teachercontrolled classroom.’ That is how DIE ZEIT comments on the present situation. The established system is tough in persisting, but we can save our educational systems only of we do justice to the individual learner. References Brown, R. (1973) A First Language: The Early Stages. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam: Benjamin.

16

Part 1: Background Assumptions

Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982) Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grotjahn, R. (1998) Lernstile und Lernstrategien: Defi nition, Identifikation, unterrichtliche Relevanz. Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht – Französisch 34, 11–15. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Helmke, A. (2008) Weg vom Durchschnittsschüler. Schulblatt des Kantons Zürich 3, 8–9. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman. Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1999) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Little, D. (1991) Learner Autonomy I: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik. Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Language. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters. Müller, K. (1996) Wege konstruktivistischer Lernkultur. In K. Müller (ed.) Konstruktivismus: Lehren – Lernen – Ästhetische Prozesse. Neuwied: Luchterhand. Naiman, N., Stren, H.H. and Todesco, A. (1995) The Good Language Learner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Neisser, U. (1979) Kognition und Wirklichkeit: Prinzipien und Implikationen der kognitiven Psychologie. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Piaget, J. (1979) Remarques introductives. In M. Piattelli-Palamarini (ed.) Théories du Langage et Théories de l’Apprentissage. Paris: Seuil. Rumelhart, D.E. and Norman, D.A. (1978) Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J.W. Cotton and R. Klatzky (eds) Semantic Factors in Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Skehan, P. (1991) Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 275–298. Wolff, D. (2002) Fremdsprachenlernen als Konstruktion: Grundlagen einer konstruktivistisch orientierten Fremdsprachendidaktik. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Wolff, D. (2003) Content and language integrated learning: A framework for the development of learner autonomy. In D. Little, J. Ridley and E. Ushioda (eds) Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom: Teacher, Learner, Curriculum and Assessment. Dublin: Authentik. Wolff, D. (2007) Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in Europa: Versuch eines systematischen Überblicks. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 36, 13–29. ZEIT (2009) Alle zum Einzeltraining: DIE ZEIT 26.2.2009, 31–32.

Chapter 2

Research into Language Learning Strategies: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead M. PAWLAK

Introduction Now that research into language learning strategies (LLS) has entered its fourth decade, it is fully warranted to ponder over the most important accomplishments, highlight the most serious problems and challenges, as well as chart the course for future research endeavors. On the one hand, it is undeniable that our current understanding of strategic devices that learners draw upon in their attempts to master the target language (TL) far exceeds the preliminary and fragmentary insights gleaned from the first good language learner studies conducted in the 1970s (e.g. Naiman et al., 1978/1996; Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975), which is evidenced by the fact that researchers have proposed numerous classifications of strategies, investigated a range of factors affecting their choice and use, verified the effectiveness of strategy training programs and refi ned the necessary research tools and analytical procedures (Anderson, 2005; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Ellis, 2008; Griffiths, 2008). What can reasonably be viewed as the most important milestones in this respect was the recognition of the relevance of this line of inquiry for pedagogy (e.g. Ellis & Sinclair, 1989), establishing a link between the use of LLS and individual factors (e.g. Jones et al., 1987; O’Malley et al., 1985; Reiss, 1981), placing the study of strategies within Anderson’s (1983) cognitive framework (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), the emergence of Oxford’s (1990) comprehensive taxonomy of strategic devices along with the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) as an instrument for measuring the frequency of strategy use, shifting attention to the individual and contextual aspects of the application of LLS (e.g. Cohen, 1998; McDonough, 1995), or laying emphasis on the quality rather than only quantity of LLS use (e.g. Macaro, 2001). On the 17

18

Part 1: Background Assumptions

other hand, however, even after so many years of intensive research, there is still no consensus concerning such fundamental issues as the definition of strategies or their distinctive characteristics (e.g. consciousness, goalorientation, potential for learning) (cf. Cohen, 2007; Grenfell & Macaro, 2007), with some specialists going as far as to argue that the concept should be abandoned in favor of a more inclusive notion of self-regulation (e.g. Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). Moreover, there are lines of enquiry that have been blatantly neglected by researchers, with only a handful of studies exploring the role of strategies in such domains as grammar, pronunciation or pragmatics (e.g. Oxford et al., 2007; Pawlak, 2006, 2008a, 2008b; Sykes & Cohen, 2009). The present chapter aims to address such complexities by taking stock of the most crucial attainments in the field of language learning strategy research, pinpointing the most acute problems, outlining directions for future empirical investigations and offering a number of pedagogic solutions. Accordingly, at the very outset, emphasis will be laid on disentangling the thorny issues of defining and classifying LLS, which will be followed by a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the most significant research findings concerning the variables affecting the use of strategies as well as issues involved in training learners in their successful employment. Subsequently, the focus of attention will be shifted to methodological aspects of the study of LLS, and the chapter will close with the identification of the major challenges that LLS research still urgently needs to tackle and the implications that the available empirical evidence may have for everyday teaching practice.

Definitions, Descriptions and Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies What is immediately striking when undertaking a review of the copious literature related to LLS is the existence of considerable terminological and conceptual confusion, which makes the task of defining, characterizing and classifying strategic devices a truly daunting task (cf. Ellis, 2008; Grenfell & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths, 2008). For one thing, a variety of labels have been used over the last 40 years by theorists and researchers to refer to LLS, with the term strategy being replaced by or contrasted with such words and phrases as learning behaviors, tactics, techniques or tricks (cf. Ellis, 2008; Griffiths, 2008; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). More importantly, the notion of strategy as such has been interpreted in very different ways, with Tarone (1980) drawing a distinction between production strategies (i.e. techniques that ensure efficient use of the linguistic system with minimal effort), communication strategies (i.e. devices used to resolve communication problems in interaction) and learning strategies (i.e. attempts to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence), Stern (1983) distinguishing

Research into Language Learning Strategies

19

between strategies (i.e. general approaches to language learning) and techniques (i.e. concrete learning behaviors with respect to specific skills or subsystems), and Seliger (1984) talking about strategies (i.e. categories of processing information) and tactics (i.e. specific learning behaviors and activities which vary as a function of individual and contextual factors). Even though the term strategy has established itself in the field, which is evident in the fact that it is consistently used in most recent publications on the subject (e.g. Anderson, 2005; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Ehrman et al., 2003; Ellis, 2008; Griffiths, 2008), controversy over the scope of the concept has persisted to the present day and mainly concerns the decision as to whether learning and communication should be perceived as two sides of the same coin or, rather, as two distinct processes. Accordingly, some specialists conflate language learning and language use strategies, assigning them to the broad category of language learner strategies (e.g. Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002; Cohen & Macaro, 2007) while others retain the distinction, opting for the use of the term language learning strategies and discussing communication strategies as a separate group (e.g. Ellis, 2008; Griffiths, 2008; Ortega, 2009). It is clearly the latter stance that is adopted in this chapter. When it comes to the definition of LLS, it has also been subject to considerable modifications over the years and these have by and large been a reflection of the theoretical and empirical developments in the field. One of the earliest conceptualizations of LLS was proposed by Oxford who described them in very functional terms as ‘behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable’ (Oxford, 1989: 235). Since the comprehensive taxonomy she put forward also included a number of mental processes such as paying attention, self-monitoring or reasoning (see below for more details), she soon handled this inconsistency by replacing the expression ‘behaviors and actions’ with the phrase ‘steps taken by the learner’, which encompassed strategic devices of very different nature (Oxford, 1990). O’Malley and Chamot, in turn, characterized LLS as ‘special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information’ (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990: 1), a definition that emphasized the cognitive aspects of strategy use and was reflective of their attempt to ground language learning strategy research in cognitive psychological theory and, to be more precise, in Anderson’s (1983) Adaptive Control of Thought Model. It is also instructive to quote at this point two of the most recent and also the most comprehensive definitions of learning strategies, one of which is specifically connected with the field of second language acquisition and the other is representative of recent trends in educational psychology. In the words of Oxford, LLS refer to ‘specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students use to improve their own progress in developing skills in a second or foreign language. These strategies can facilitate

20

Part 1: Background Assumptions

the internalization, storage, retrieval or use of the new language’ (Oxford, 1999: 518). For Weinstein et al., ‘Learning strategies include any thoughts, behaviors, beliefs, or emotions that facilitate the acquisition, understanding, or later transfer of new knowledge and skills’ (Weinstein et al., 2000: 727). Although the latter is somewhat more inclusive than the former in that it also mentions beliefs, emotions and transfer, there is a striking similarity in terms of the aspects of strategic devices covered, which indicates that the lines of inquiry pursued in both fields overlap in all important respects. Such definitions, however precise and exhaustive they might appear to be, have come in for considerable criticism in recent years, the most frequently voiced concern being that the concept of strategy itself is ambiguous and lacks sound theoretical foundations. Dörnyei and Skehan (2003), for example, make the point that learning strategies cannot simultaneously be cognitive, affective and behavioral, or contribute to the acquisition of knowledge and skills as well as reorganization of existing linguistic representation. As they emphasize, ‘To satisfy all these criteria, either learning strategies must be some sort of superordinate magic tools, or the term has been used in far too broad a sense, including a number of different things that do not necessarily belong together’ (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003: 610). Another critique is offered by Dörnyei (2005) who highlights the difficulty involved in drawing a distinction between ordinary learning activities and strategic learning activities, a problem clearly illustrated by the fact that learning new words by repeating them aloud or jotting them down many times on a piece of paper, for instance, can be regarded as both focused learning and the utilization of the strategy of formal practice. He points to the insufficiency of the criteria typically employed to identify strategic learning activities such as goal-directedness, intentionality, effort, choice or appropriateness, and argues that this lack of a clear-cut differentiation between learning and the use of learning strategies raises doubts as to whether LLS can be said to really exist as a psychological construct. Although LLS are invariably regarded as such in the literature (e.g. Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Ellis, 2008; Ortega, 2009), problems have also arisen with regard to viewing them as facets of individual variation, with Dörnyei stating that ‘. . . actions and thoughts are not individual differences’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 163), and commenting in another publication that learning strategies ‘. . . are not ID factors even in the traditional sense because rather than being learner attributes, they refer to idiosyncratic selfregulated behavior, and a particular learning behavior can be strategic for one learner and non-strategic for another’ (2009: 183). Finally, criticism has been leveled at the proliferation of inventories of LLS, even the most influential of which lack precision and clarity, often including strategic devices or discrete categories thereof which clearly overlap and containing behaviors that do not fit in with the theoretical underpinnings adopted (cf. Dörnyei, 2005).

Research into Language Learning Strategies

21

According to Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) and Dörnyei (2005), what needs to be done to overcome such problems and inconsistencies is to follow the route taken by educational psychologists in the 1990s by abandoning the concept of strategy and focusing instead on the construct of self-regulation, thus shifting attention from the description of the specific actions and thoughts that learners draw upon to the fact that they manifest willingness to proactively contribute to the improvement of their own learning. In the words of Dörnyei, it is ‘. . . a more dynamic concept than learning strategy’ and it represents ‘a multidimensional construct, including cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, behavioral, and environmental processes that learners can apply to enhance academic achievement’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 611). He also argues that its advantage over the notion of strategy lies in the fact that it offers a much broader perspective on the task of learning and lays emphasis on the process understood in terms of learner active involvement rather than the product typically equated with the application of strategies. Innovative and even revolutionary as this approach might be, however, it does not obviate the need for the concept of strategy since in order to empirically investigate the activities learners engage in with an eye to self-regulating their learning, it is still indispensible to define and describe these activities as well as to operationalize them in some way (Griffiths, 2008). As regards the reservations concerning the difficulty in defining and categorizing LLS that led to such a radical proposal in the first place, even though they may be warranted, they can also be somewhat overstated, with the effect that, as Grenfell and Macaro aptly comment, ‘. . . Dörnyei may be setting up a straw man in order to knock him down’ (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007: 27). This is because his reasoning is based on too many overgeneralizations, it does not give credit to the latest developments in the field, and ignores the fact that many of his concerns have been voiced by other researchers who have taken steps to deal with the existing shortcomings. While it is the belief of the present author that research into LLS is still worthwhile and should be undoubtedly pursued, there is also an urgent need for a more precise definition of the concept that would attempt to accommodate the most recent claims and provide a basis for its operationalization in further empirical investigations. An interesting proposal in this respect has been offered by Griffiths who brings together the areas of consensus and, taking as a point of departure the most essential characteristics of LLS, defines them as ‘Activities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own language learning’ (Griffiths, 2008: 86). As demonstrated by this characterization as well as other most recent accounts of strategic language learning (e.g. Cohen, 2007; Dörnyei, 2005; Ellis, 2008; Macaro, 2006), LLS possess a number of distinctive features that should be taken into account when proposing descriptive schemes or conducting research. For one thing, learners are usually aware of the strategies

22

Part 1: Background Assumptions

they fall back upon, with the caveat that, as argued by Schmidt (2001) and Robinson (2007), consciousness and attention can transpire at a number of different levels and therefore the employment of strategic devices can be more or less automatic. Strategies are also believed to be goal-oriented, even though this as well seems to be a matter of degree and the ability to name a concrete purpose represents a continuum, and problem-oriented in the sense that the use of a strategy is instigated by difficulties that come up in the course of learning. Additionally, LLS refer to both general approaches (e.g. a tendency to plan one’s learning) and specific actions (e.g. selecting a goal), they can be more or less concrete (e.g. highlighting vs. doing so by underlining), some of them are observable while others are not (e.g. using a dictionary vs. self-monitoring), they can be linguistic or nonlinguistic, and in the former case involve the use of the L1 or the L2. Of particular relevance is the fact that strategies can be single actions or sequences of actions, which often depends on the complexity of the task, their value in promoting learning hinges upon adeptly combining them into strategy clusters (i.e. used simultaneously) or chains (i.e. used sequentially) and their contribution to the learning process is mainly indirect in that their application generates more TL data for processing but it can also be direct in some cases. Last but not least, there is currently a consensus that the use of learning strategies is bound to vary as a function of task, context and individual variables (see below), and that it is closely related to learner autonomy and independence (cf. Cohen, 2007; Ellis, 2008). Another challenge confronting theorists and researchers in the area of LLS is connected with devising comprehensive but at the same time internally consistent and theory-driven taxonomies of LLS that could serve as a point of reference in research on various aspects of description, use and training. While a number of such categorizations have been proposed, the most influential and most commonly cited are the systems of classification developed by O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990). In the former, a distinction is made between metacognitive strategies (i.e. such that regulate learning by means of planning, monitoring or evaluating), cognitive strategies (i.e. such that are deployed in specific learning tasks and entail synthesizing, analyzing or transforming the learning material so as to enhance the process of learning) and socio-affective strategies (i.e. those which involve interaction with other users of the TL). As regards the latter, it is hierarchical in character and it is based on a division of LLS into direct strategies (i.e. those that involve mental processing of the TL), which are further categorized as memory strategies (e.g. creating mental linkages), cognitive strategies (e.g. different forms of practicing) and compensation strategies (e.g. overcoming limitations in speaking and writing), and indirect strategies (i.e. those that aid the general management of learning) that are broken down into metacognitive strategies (e.g. centering the learning process), affective strategies (e.g. taking steps to lower anxiety) and social

Research into Language Learning Strategies

23

strategies (e.g. cooperating with others). Since there is an obvious overlap between the two taxonomies and both of them suffer from problems regarding construct validity (cf. Ellis, 2008; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002), it has been suggested that they be combined so as to increase their explanatory power and ensure greater compatibility with the available research findings. According to Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) and Dörnyei (2005), this should involve condensing Oxford’s (1990) inventory by eliminating compensation strategies and merging the subgroups of memory and cognitive strategies, and expanding O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) typology by separating social strategies from affective strategies, with the resulting system comprising four main components, namely metacognitive, cognitive, social and affective strategies. There have also been other attempts to classify LLS such as those undertaken by Purpura (1999) who, drawing upon models of cognitive processing, differentiated between strategies related to the processes of comprehension, storage and retrieval, and Cohen and Chi (2002) who divided strategic devices according to highly pragmatic criteria into six categories related to listening, speaking, reading, writing, as well as vocabulary learning and translation. A particularly promising approach, in the opinion of the present author, is the development of detailed and comprehensive typologies of LLS narrowly focused on particular subsystems and skills, as has been done for vocabulary or productive and receptive skills (cf. Anderson, 2005). Unfortunately, such domains as grammar, pronunciation or pragmatics have thus far received only scant attention from specialists (cf. Oxford et al., 2007; Pawlak, 2008a, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b) and should become the focus of more intensive research endeavors in the near future, a point that will be revisited in the conclusion to this chapter.

Variables Affecting Strategy Choice and Use Although research into LLS has addressed a wide array of issues, ranging from the identification and description of strategic devices to the determination of the effects of strategy training programs, perhaps the most fruitful line of inquiry has proved to be variation in strategy use as a function of individual, contextual and group variables (cf. Chamot, 2004; Takeuchi et al., 2007). When it comes to learner-related factors, there is evidence for the role of age, with older learners using a greater number of more sophisticated strategies in a more general manner (e.g. Peacock & Ho, 2003; Victori & Tragant, 2003), the intensity and type of motivation, with more motivated learners employing a wider range of strategies more frequently than less motivated ones (e.g. Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001), gender, with females using some types of LLS more often than males (e.g. Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; El-Dib, 2004; Oxford, 1994), and experience with language and language learning, with learners with a background in linguistics or those studying foreign languages for longer periods of time

24

Part 1: Background Assumptions

displaying a propensity for greater strategy use (e.g. Ehrman, 1990; Nation & McLaughlin, 1986). Other pertinent variables include personality, in which case the evidence is still tenuous and mainly concerns the fact that extroverts show a preference for using more functional practice, social and affective strategies than introverts who would rather work on their own (e.g. Ehrman & Oxford, 1990; Wakamoto, 2000), learning styles, where differences in LLS use, for example, are likely to be a function of the holistic and analytic approach (e.g. Carson & Longhini, 2002; Littlemore, 2001), as well as beliefs, with learners convinced of the importance of the TL system and those stressing communication relying on diverse strategy types (e.g. Wenden, 1987). Researchers have also shown that strategy choice and use are mediated by the nature of the learning goal, usually understood as career orientation or the major academic field of study. Politzer and McGroarty (1985) found, for instance, that humanities majors used more individual learning strategies than engineering students, Mochizuki (1999) demonstrated that English majors more frequently fell back upon social, compensation and metacognitive strategies than students majoring in other fields, and Peacock and Ho (2003) explored LLS use by English for Specific Purposes students in eight disciplines, reporting that English majors applied the most cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies while computing students the fewest. Although, to the best knowledge of the present author, there have been no studies specifically addressing this area, it would also seem that frequency of LLS use is a function of envisaged proficiency levels, a variable that is obviously intricately interwoven with motivation. There is also copious empirical evidence linking the use of learning strategies to a wide array of contextual and situational variables. One of these is culture, equated in many studies with nationality or ethnicity, which is not surprising in view of the fact that language learning is bound to be situated in a very specific cultural milieu, with cultural beliefs, perceptions and values inevitably affecting the approaches, strategies and techniques employed by learners (cf. Oxford, 1996). This is evident in studies conducted by Levine et al. (1996), who found in an Israeli context that new arrivals from the former Soviet Union tended to use more traditional strategies (e.g. memorizing) than longer-time immigrants, Politzer and McGroarty (1985), who reported that Hispanic students deployed LLS more frequently than their Asian counterparts, Bedell and Oxford (1996), who showed that Asian students were more likely to use compensation strategies than Puerto Rican and Egyptian students, and Griffiths (2003), who demonstrated that European students were more active strategy users than learners from other backgrounds. Also important may be the impact of the instructional setting, classroom foreign language learners applying fewer LLS than second language learners and showing a disinclination to use social and affective strategies (Chamot et al., 1988; Wharton, 2000).

Research into Language Learning Strategies

25

Yet another factor that may impinge upon the choice and use of LLS is the language being learnt, with students of Russian in the United States, for example, resorting to more strategies than students of Spanish (Chamot et al., 1987) and the same situation being the case for learners of French in comparison with those of Japanese (Wharton, 2000). The findings of more recent studies also point to the importance of the learning task, a good example being the research project undertaken by Oxford et al. (2004) in which strategy use turned out to be the outcome of an intricate interplay of task demands and the subjects’ proficiency level. Finally, classrooms as such may be an important variable since, on the one hand, the strategies learners use more often than not reflect the preferred instructional practices of their teachers (e.g. Pawlak, 2008a, 2008b), and, on the other, they are likely to be influenced by the socially constructed goals shared by the students (e.g. Takeuchi et al., 2007). The issue that deserves to be discussed at somewhat greater length is the relationship between the application of LLS and target learning attainment, for the simple reason that the existence of such a link provides a justification for the implementation of strategy training programs. Even a cursory overview of the relevant literature reveals that the majority of LLS specialists tend to lean toward the opinion voiced by Oxford that ‘. . . appropriate use of language learning strategies . . . results in improved L2 proficiency overall, or in specific skill areas’ (Oxford, 2002: 126). There are indeed numerous studies that have found a strong link between strategy use, both overall, with respect to general categories of LLS and specific strategic devices, and learning outcomes (Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Green & Oxford, 1995; Philips, 1991; Sheorey, 1999; Wharton, 2000; Ying-Chun, 2009), with Oxford (2001) arguing that it explains from 21% to 61% of the variability in attainment. At the same time, however, there are research projects that have produced evidence to the contrary or at least identified important mediating variables such as learner factors, task in hand, aspect of TL proficiency, mode of instruction, educational level or degree of clustering (e.g. Magogwe & Oliver, 2007; Nisbet et al., 2005; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985). Yet another problem is that there are specialists who prefer to talk about the impact of proficiency on strategy use rather than the other way round, a position which is taken by Anderson who writes ‘Proficient L2 learners have been found to have a wider repertoire of strategies and draw upon them to accomplish L2 tasks’ (Anderson, 2005: 762), adding that the TL level accounts for 30–78% of the variance in LLS use. Such diverging perspectives are the corollary of the fact that it is impossible to unambiguously determine causality on the basis of correlational research, which indicates that caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions, all the more so that strategies are in all likelihood both the cause and effect of greater TL proficiency (cf. Green & Oxford, 1995; McIntyre, 1994). It is also necessary to look into qualitative aspects of

26

Part 1: Background Assumptions

strategy use by more and less proficient learners as such an approach is often likely to yield much more valuable insights than mere quantification of reported use of different categories of LLS. One conclusion that can be drawn from such research is that strategy use may reflect the general level of learners’ L2 development, with LLS related to communication preceding those involving attention to specific TL features or those necessary for metacognition (cf. Ellis, 2008). Another is that all strategies are potentially beneficial on condition that they are matched to the learning task, compatible with students’ learning styles, adroitly employed and combined into clusters and chains with other relevant strategies, all of which, however, are requirements that mainly successful learners can be expected to fulfil (cf. Ehrman et al., 2003). A fitting comment on all these complexities comes from McDonough who writes that ‘The relationship between strategy use and proficiency is very complicated. Issues such as frequency and quality of strategy use do not bear a simple linear relationship to achievement in a second language’ (McDonough, 1999: 717). While the body of research into variables affecting the employment of LLS is indeed impressive, we should not be lured into thinking that the revealed relationships represent invariable patterns that can serve as a basis of pedagogic recommendations. For one thing, although such inconsistencies could not always be highlighted above for reasons of space, the empirical findings are in most cases mixed and inconclusive, with some studies showing that the correlations are either weak or non-existent. Another problem is that there are intricate interfaces between variables, with the outcome that the existence of specific relationships may often be influenced by a number of other factors, a phenomenon that affected the results of the study conducted by Griffiths (2003) in which the impact of age, gender and proficiency was superseded by the participants’ ethnicity and goals. Finally, it should be emphasized that the variables in question are often operationalized in disparate ways in different studies, as is evident in research on the role of proficiency where LLS use is assessed by means of various tools and attainment may be understood as scores on standardized tests, course grades or measures of self-assessment. Such differences in data collection procedures may be responsible for divergent findings, making comparisons across studies difficult and often stand in the way of isolating more general tendencies.

Issues in Language Learning Strategy Training Research into LLS had a strong pedagogical orientation from its very inception since, however unrealistic it might have ultimately turned out to be, the rationale behind the first good language learner studies was that it was possible to identify the characteristics, approaches and techniques that could somehow be imparted to less successful individuals, thus

Research into Language Learning Strategies

27

enhancing their chances of mastering the TL. In fact, immediate relevance to pedagogy was one of the main reasons for the expansion of the field because the findings of LLS research were intuitively useful for teachers and learners, they could be easily integrated into teaching practice, and they provided a basis for teaching students strategies in an attempt to accelerate the learning process (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007). This being the case, it should not come as a surprise that despite all the confusion and uncertainty concerning the conceptual basis and classification of strategies, strategy training has never lost its appeal and even the most outspoken detractors of LLS research have steadfastly defended the merits of implementing instruction aimed to aid learners in becoming more effective. This is evident, for example, in the stance taken by Dörnyei who comments: ‘If we think about it, even if the notion learning strategy does not exist as a distinctive aspect of learning but only indicates creative and personalized learning behaviors, the training of the “strategies” would be a highly desirable activity as it would amount, in effect, to the teaching of learners ways in which they can learn better. And no one would question the fact that most learners would benefit from an improvement of their study skills’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 173). In addition, high-quality strategies-based instruction (SBI) is likely to be inherently motivating and interesting, with the effect that learners are not only better prepared to deal with the complexities of language learning but also more willing to invest the necessary effort to achieve their goals (cf. Pressley et al., 1992). Paradoxically, the widespread conviction that strategy training is beneficial fails to find unequivocal support in the research findings that have been conflicting and inconclusive, often even within single studies. One example is a study conducted by Cohen et al. (1995), who investigated the impact of SBI on the development of speaking skills and found that the experimental group outperformed the control group on only one out of three posttest measures of free oral production, with increased reported use of relevant strategies leading to improvement in both conditions. On the whole, as demonstrated in recent reviews of pertinent research penned by Chamot (2005a), Rubin et al. (2007) and Ellis (2008), strategy training is not universally successful, its positive effects are typically short-lived, and they do not apply in equal measure to all TL modalities, with reading and writing apparently being more amenable to SBI than listening, speaking or vocabulary learning. Another weakness of the empirical investigations conducted to date is that they suffer from a number of limitations, such as excessive focus on older learners, failure to take into account various educational contexts and language learning programs, or insufficient emphasis on the development of teachers’ expertise for engaging in strategy training. What should also be mentioned are serious methodological flaws afflicting this line of inquiry, which considerably reduce the reliability and validity of the findings, and may account for at least some of the observed

28

Part 1: Background Assumptions

divergences (cf. McDonough, 1999; Hassan et al., 2005; Rubin et al., 2007). The most common of these shortcomings are related to the lack of a comparable control group, infrequent use of delayed posttests as well as virtual absence of longitudinal research designs. Such problems have not prevented specialists from providing specific guidelines on how SBI should be conducted and devising full-fledged frameworks for strategy training, thus putting into practice Nunan’s recommendation that ‘. . . language classrooms should have a dual focus, not only teaching language content but also on developing learning processes as well’ (Nunan, 1996: 41). While there are inevitable voices of dissent, the majority of LLS experts are in agreement that successful SBI should adhere to several key principles, namely: (1) it should be explicit, integrated into regular classroom instruction and as comprehensive as possible, (2) its initial focus should be on metacognitive strategies, (3) students’ native language can be an invaluable aid in learner training, (4) the instructional targets should be determined by or related to the problems encountered by students, (5) immediate and recognizable success should be top priority, and (6) individual learner variation should be taken into consideration when planning and implementing strategy training (Chamot, 2004; Rubin et al., 2007). All these principles have found reflection in a number of models for language learning strategy instruction, such as those proposed by Oxford (1990), O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Cohen (1998), Chamot et al. (1999), Grenfell and Harris (1999), Macaro (2001) or Chamot (2005b). While these schemes may differ in some details, they pursue very similar goals and share the main characteristics. This is evident in the fact that all of them recognize the importance of initial identification of the LLS used by learners, awareness-raising regarding the value of particular strategic devices, teacher demonstration and modeling, sufficient opportunities for practice in a variety of tasks, as well as reflection and self-evaluation of the use of new strategies, often with the assistance from the teacher. A particularly ambitious attempt to incorporate SBI into teaching has been undertaken by Cohen (2002) in his Styles and Strategies-based Instruction which has the dual goal of making students cognizant of both their learning styles preferences and the strategies they employ so as to ensure a greater fit between the two, thus increasing the likelihood of their successfully approaching TL learning tasks. The value of all these proposals notwithstanding, there are researchers who question the rationale behind strategy training (e.g. Rees-Miller, 1993) and such skepticism is perhaps not without ground. This is because, to quote from Dörnyei one more time, ‘Although the available strategy training materials and skills are generally creative and impressive, it is not clear whether the benefits of their explicit employment warrant the time and effort spent on them in comparison to spending the same amount of creative energy designing “ordinary” learning activities’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 176).

Research into Language Learning Strategies

29

Methodology of Research into Language Learning Strategies Since methodological issues concerning research into LLS have been touched upon throughout this chapter and they are discussed at length in some very recent publications (e.g. Ellis, 2008; Pawlak, 2009c; White et al., 2007), this section will focus in the main on the ways in which the employment of LLS can be measured, placing particular emphasis on the use of questionnaires, a tool that is most often employed for that purpose. Although huge advances have been made in research methods on LLS, with scholars experimenting with a diversity of innovative ways of procuring information about the actions learners take, the data collection instrument that has been most widely utilized is the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) developed by Oxford (1990) on the basis of her classification of strategic devices. It consists of Likert-scale statements grouped into six categories corresponding to six groups of strategies in the typology, with students indicating on a five-point scale the frequency with which they engage in a specific activity and averages being computed for each scale and the battery as a whole. This inventory has been especially useful in correlational studies seeking to determine the relationship between reported LLS use and a number of other factors such as those listed in section ‘Variables Affecting Strategy Choice and Use’, and evidence has been obtained for its validity and internal consistency reliability, as indicated by the values of Cronbach alpha oscillating between 0.91 and 0.96 (cf. Nyikos & Oxford, 1993). At the same time, however, the tool has been criticized on a number of counts, some of which are connected with the weaknesses of any survey-based research, such as potential misunderstanding or inaccurate interpretation of questions or problems involved in verifying the extent to which the responses are truthful (cf. Dörnyei, 2007; McKay, 2006). Another criticism is connected with the fact that the SILL only supplies quantitative data, with the result that on reading statements like ‘I look for patterns in the new language’ or ‘I ask other people to correct my pronunciation,’ learners may be in a quandary as to which option to indicate because their behavior may vary from one context to the next (cf. Ellis, 2004). Even more damaging are the recent reservations concerning the psychometric properties of the instrument which are connected with low levels of test–retest reliability (cf. Robson & Midorikawa, 2001) and lack of psychometric justification for computing mean scores despite the fact that the scales are not cumulative (cf. Dörnyei, 2005). Even though the SILL will most likely remain one of the most popular data collection tools in the foreseeable future, such problems have prompted theorists and researchers to look for other ways of assessing strategy use, opting in many cases for domain-specific rather than general instruments. One example of such a new inventory, which is yet to be

30

Part 1: Background Assumptions

employed in the study of LLS but holds out considerable promise, is the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), which comes from the field of educational psychology and employs a seven-point Likert scale to tap the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies on the one hand, and resources management strategies on the other (cf. VanderStoep & Pintrich, 2003). Another useful instrument is the Language Strategy Use Inventory and Index (LSUII), which has been devised by Cohen and Chi (2002) on the basis of the typology presented in section ‘Defi nitions, Descriptions and Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies’ and it is intended primarily as an awareness-raising tool for learners rather than a research instrument. It is highly pragmatic in dividing LLS into those used in learning the four main skills, vocabulary and translation, breaks down the six categories into additional subscales to further orient learners, and employs four practical responses (e.g. ‘I use this strategy and I like it’) instead of cumulative rating scales. When it comes to domain-specific developments, it is worth mentioning the Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale (SRCvoc), a survey invented by Tseng et al. (2006), which focuses on the self-regulatory capacity that contributes to strategy use and not the application of LLS as such. Thus, similarly to MSLQ, it taps into general learner traits rather than behavioral habits and explores five broad aspects of self-regulation in learning lexical items, namely: commitment control, metacognitive control, satiation control, emotion control and environmental control. Also of interest is the research tool for investigating strategic learning in the area of grammar that has been developed by Pawlak (2009b) who opted for a combination of a taxonomy of LLS proposed by Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) and a classification of options in teaching grammar taken from Ellis (1997), and included both Likert-scale and open-ended items in the survey. Given the inherent limitations of self-report questionnaires, the most serious of which pertain to ignoring individual, situational and cultural dimensions of strategy use as well as neglecting the dynamic nature of LLS, it would also be advisable to contextualize them and complement them with alternative data collection tools. For one thing, it is possible to devise task-based surveys that are closely related to a previously completed activity and respect to a much greater degree the situated and contextual nature of strategic learning (e.g. Fan, 2003). Another solution might involve designing questionnaires that would provide both quantitative and qualitative data, thus guarding against accidental responses and ensuring that learners are given the opportunity to provide more detailed information on specific issues. The greatest potential, however, lies in combining a number of instruments in a single study because such methodological triangulation enables researchers to explore the use of strategies from various perspectives and to gain even more insights into their situated and dynamic nature. Although the choice of specific tools will

Research into Language Learning Strategies

31

obviously be dictated by the aims and design of a particular research project, additional data on LLS use could be collected by means of retrospective interviews, diaries, logs and journals, including electronic ones, observation or think-aloud protocols (cf. Pawlak, 2009c; White et al., 2007).

Directions for Future Research and Pedagogical Implications Although the field of language learning strategy research has undoubtedly come of age over the last decades, with major advances being made with respect to describing, classifying, teaching and investigating strategic devices, there are many questions that remain unanswered and numerous challenges that theorists, researchers and methodologists have to confront. First and foremost, it seems fully warranted to retain the concept of a strategy as a unit of analysis because abandoning it in favor of self-regulation does not in the least eliminate the necessity of carefully operationalizing the activities in which language learners engage and, besides, it is clear that practitioners are better able to understand and teach strategies or techniques than somewhat nebulous self-regulatory processes. Obviously, efforts should be made to better conceptualize and operationalize the strategy construct, with the caveat that, for the sake of pedagogic relevance, research into LLS should be continued with the help of existing paradigms, taxonomies and data collection instruments. As to the areas that deserve special attention, further insights are needed into LLS use as a function of individual and contextual variables, especially those that have so far been neglected or only superficially explored (e.g. affect, learner group), the influence of different learning tasks, the dynamic nature of strategy choice and use, the processes involved in strategy retrieval, the relationship between LLS use and proficiency, as well as the effectiveness of SBI in a wide range of contexts. A particularly fruitful line of inquiry appears to be exploring all of these issues with respect to specific language skills and subsystems, placing a premium on domains that have inexplicably remained on the sidelines of language learning strategy research, namely grammar, pronunciation and pragmatics. Such developments should be accompanied by improvements in methodology, both at the level of the data collection procedures and overall design. Among other things, there is a pressing need to refine existing research tools and develop entirely new ones, to use a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to gathering and analyzing data and to employ more than one instrument with a view to ensuring greater validity and reliability of the findings. It is also advisable to ascertain that the research designs selected are compatible with the goals of a given study, exercise caution in identifying and operationalizing independent and dependent variables, and conduct both cross-sectional and longitudinal research into LLS (cf. Pawlak, 2009c).

32

Part 1: Background Assumptions

The research findings discussed in this chapter, conflicting and incomplete as they might be in some cases, also provide a basis for suggesting a handful of recommendations for language teachers. In the first place, there can be little doubt that SBI should be an integral part of foreign language pedagogy, in the sense that it must be accorded the weight it deserves not only in national curricula, syllabuses and teaching materials, but also in actual teaching practice, which is often not the case. Naturally, such training should be informed by the principles and guidelines spelled out above, a crucial qualification being that specific decisions about the duration, scope or nature of SBI must be appropriate for a given context and take into account the goals and needs of a particular learner group. It should also be kept in mind that making students more reflective and autonomous will take much more than bringing their attention to specific strategic devices and supplying adequate practice in this respect, which means that strategy training should constitute but one element in a more general program aimed at the development of learner independence. A program of this kind can be considerably aided by systematic in- and out-of-class use of a suitable version of the European Language Portfolio as well as the coursebook provided that the quantity and quality of SBI contained therein are substantially improved. Last but not least, more emphasis should be laid on SBI in teacher training programs since practitioners’ awareness and appropriate use of strategies is undoubtedly a prerequisite to effective SBI in foreign and second language classrooms. References Anderson, J.R. (1983) The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, N. (2005) L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 757–771). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bedell, D.A. and Oxford, R.L. (1996) Cross-cultural comparison of language learning strategies in the People’s Republic of China and other countries. In R.L. Oxford (ed.) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 47–60). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. Carson, J. and Longhini, A. (2001) Focusing on learning styles and strategies: A diary study in an immersion setting. Language Learning 52, 401–438. Chamot, A.U. (2004) Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 1, 14–26. Chamot, A.U. (2005a) Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 112–130. Chamot, A.U. (2005b) The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): An update. In P.A. Richard-Amato and M.A. Snow (eds) Academic Success for English Language Learners: Strategies for K-12 Mainstream Teachers (pp. 87–101). White Plains, NY: Longman. Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.B. and Robbins, J. (1999) The Learning Strategies Handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.

Research into Language Learning Strategies

33

Chamot, A.U., Küpper, L. and Impink-Hernandez, M. (1988) A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction: Findings of the Longitudinal Study. McLean, VA: Interstate Research Associates. Chamot, A.U., O’Malley, J.M., Küpper, L. and Impink-Hernandez, M. (1987) A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction: First Year Report. Rosslyn, VA: Interstate Research Associates. Cohen, A.D. (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London: Longman. Cohen, A.D. (2002) Preparing teachers for styles- and strategies-based instruction. In V. Crew, C. Davison and B. Mak (eds) Reflecting on Language in Education (pp. 49–69). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Cohen, A.D. (2007) Coming to terms with language learner strategies: Surveying the experts. In A.D. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 29–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, A.D. and Chi, J.C. (2002) Language strategy use inventory and index. In R.M. Paige, A.D. Cohen, B. Kappler, J.C. Chi and J.P. Lassegard (eds) Maximizing Study Abroad (pp. 16–28). Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research for Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Cohen, A.D. and Dörnyei, Z. (2002) Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles and strategies. In N. Schmitt (ed.) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp. 170–190). London: Edward Arnold. Cohen, A.D. and Macaro, E. (eds) (2007) Language Learner Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, A.D., Weaver, S. and Li, T-Y. (1995) The Impact of Strategies-based Instruction on Speaking in a Foreign Language. Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research for Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2009) The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003) Individual differences in second language learning. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell. Dreyer, C. and Oxford, R.L. (1996) Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among Afrikaans speakers in South Africa. In R.L. Oxford (ed.) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 61–74). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. Ehrman, M. (1990) The role of personality type in adult language learning: An ongoing investigation. In T. Parry and C. Stansfield (eds) Language Aptitude Reconsidered (pp. 126–178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ehrman, M., Leaver, B. and Oxford, R.L. (2003) A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System 31, 313–330. Ehrman, M. and Oxford, R.L. (1990) Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal 74, 311–327. El-Dib, M.A.B. (2004) Language learning strategies in Kuwait: Links to gender, language level, and culture in a hybrid context. Foreign Language Annals 37, 85–95. Ellis, G. and Sinclair, B. (1989) Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1997) SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34

Part 1: Background Assumptions

Ellis, R. (2004) Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies and C. Elder (eds) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 525–551). Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fan, M.Y. (2003) Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. Modern Language Journal 87, 222–241. Green, J.M. and Oxford, R.L. (1995) A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29, 261–297. Grenfell, M. and Harris, V. (1999) Modern Languages and Learning Strategies: In Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Grenfell, M. and Macaro, E. (2007) Claims and critiques. In A.D. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 9–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Griffiths, C. (2003) Patterns of language learning strategy use. System 31, 367–383. Griffiths, C. (2008) Strategies and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 83–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hassan, X., Macaro, E., Mason, D., Nye, G., Smith, P. and Vanderplank, R. (2005) Strategy training in language learning – A systematic review of available research. In Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Center, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. On WWW at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/reel/review_groups/mfl/ review_one.htm. Accessed 20.4.09. Hsiao, T-Y. and Oxford, R.L. (2002) Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal 86, 368–383. Jones, B.F., Palinscar, A.S., Ogle, D.S. and Carr, E.G. (1987) Strategic Teaching and Learning; Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricular Development. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman. Levine, A., Reves, T. and Leaver, B.L. (1996) Relationship between language learning strategies and Israeli versus Russian cultural–educational factors. In R.L. Oxford (ed.) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: CrossCultural Perspectives (pp. 35–45). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. Littlemore, J. (2001) An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics 22, 241–265. Macaro, E. (2001) Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms. London: Continuum. Macaro, E. (2006) Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal 90, 320–337. Magogwe, J.M. and Oliver, R. (2007) The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System 35, 338–352. McDonough, S.H. (1995) Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. London: Edward Arnold. McDonough, S. (1999) Learner strategies. Language Teaching 32, 1–18. McIntyre, P.D. (1994) Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign Language Annals 27, 185–195. McKay, S. (2006) Researching Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mochizuki, A. (1999) Language learning strategies used by Japanese university students. RELC Journal 30, 101–113.

Research into Language Learning Strategies

35

Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H. and Todesco, A. (1978/1996) The Good Language Learner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nation, R. and McLaughlin, B. (1986) Experts and novices: An informationprocessing approach to the ‘good language learner’ problem. Applied Psycholinguistics 7, 41–56. Nisbet, D.L., Tindall, E.R. and Arroyo, A.A. (2005) Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals 38, 100–107. Nunan, D. (1996) Learner strategy training in the classroom: An action research study. TESOL Journal 6, 35–41. Nyikos, M. and Oxford, R.L. (1993) A factor analytic study of language learning strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psychology. Modern Language Journal 77, 11–22. O’Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R.P. and Küpper, L. (1985) Learning strategy application with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly 19, 285–296. Ortega, L. (2009) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education. Oxford, R.L. (1989) Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System 17, 235–247. Oxford, R.L. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R.L. (1994) Gender differences in strategies and styles for L2 learning: What is the significance? Should we pay attention? In J.E. Alatis (ed.) Theory and Practice of Strategies in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 541–557). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Oxford, R.L. (1996) Preface: Why is culture important for language learning strategies? In R.L. Oxford (ed.) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: CrossCultural Perspectives (pp. ix–xv). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. Oxford, R.L. (1999) Learning strategies. In B. Spolsky (ed.) Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics (pp. 518–522). Oxford: Elsevier. Oxford, R.L. (2001) Language learning strategies. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 166– 172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R.L. (2002) Language learning strategies in a nutshell. In J.C. Richards and W.A. Renandya (eds) Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 124–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R.L. and Ehrman, M. (1995) Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System 23, 359–386. Oxford, R.L. and Nyikos, M. (1989) Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal 73, 291–300. Oxford, R.L., Cho, S., Leung, S. and Kim, H-J. (2004) Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42, 1–47. Oxford, R.L., Rang Lee, K. and Park, G. (2007) L2 grammar strategies: The second Cinderella and beyond. In A.D. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 117–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pawlak, M. (2006) On the use of pronunciation learning strategies by Polish foreign language learners. In W. Sobkowiak and E. Waniek-Klimczak (eds) Dydaktyka

36

Part 1: Background Assumptions

Fonetyki Je˛zyka Obcego w Polsce (pp. 121–135). Konin: Wydawnictwo PWSZ w Koninie. Pawlak, M. (2008a) Another look at pronunciation learning strategies: An advanced learner’s perspective. In E. Waniek-Klimczak (ed.) Issues in Accents of English (pp. 304–322). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pawlak, M. (2008b) Advanced learners’ use of strategies for learning grammar: A diary study. In M. Pawlak (ed.) Investigating English Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 109–125). Poznan´ – Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Pawlak, M. (2009a) Instructional mode and the use of grammar learning strategies. In M. Pawlak (ed.) New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 267–290). Poznan´ – Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Pawlak, M. (2009b) Investigating grammar learning strategies: In search of appropriate research tools. Paper presented at 19th Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association, Cork, Ireland. Pawlak, M. (2009c) Metodologia badan´ nad strategiami uczenia sie˛. Neofilolog 32, 65–83. Peacock, M. and Ho, B. (2003) Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13, 179–200. Philips, V. (1991) A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. The CATESOL Journal 4, 57–67. Politzer, R.L. and McGroarty, M. (1985) An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19, 103–123. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Marks, M.B., Brown, R. and Stein, S. (1992) Good strategy instruction is motivating and interesting. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi and A. Krapp (eds) The Role of Interest in Learning and Development (pp. 333–358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Purpura, J.E. (1999) Learner Strategy Use and Performance on Language Tests: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rees-Miller, J. (1993) A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly 27, 679–689. Reiss, M.A. (1981) Helping the unsuccessful language learner. Modern Language Journal 65, 121–128. Robinson, P. (2007) Attention and awareness. In J. Cenoz and N.H. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education (Vol. 6) (2nd edn) (pp. 133–142). New York: Springer. Robson, G. and Midorikawa, H. (2001) How reliable and valid is the Japanese version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning? JALT Journal 23, 202–226. Rubin, J. (1975) What the ‘Good Language Learner’ can teach us? TESOL Quarterly 9, 41–51. Rubin, J., Chamot, A.U., Harris, V. and Anderson, N.J. (2007) Intervening in the use of strategies. In A.D. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 141–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R. (2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (ed.) Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. and Watanabe, Y. (2001) Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (eds) Motivation and Second Language Learning (pp. 313–359). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Research into Language Learning Strategies

37

Seliger, H. (1984) Processing universals in second language acquisition. In F. Eckman, L. Bell and D. Nelson (eds) Universals of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 36–47). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Sheorey, R. (1999) An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of English. System 27, 173–190. Stern, H.H. (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 31, 304–318. Stern, H.H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sykes, J.M. and Cohen, A.D. (2009) Learner perception and strategies for pragmatic acquisition: A glimpse into online learning materials. In C.R. Dreyer (ed.) Language and Linguistics: Emerging Trends (pp. 99–135). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Takeuchi, O., Griffiths, C. and Coyle, D. (2007) Applying strategies to contexts: The role of individual, situational, and group differences. In A.D. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 69–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E. (1980) Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning 30, 417–431. Tseng, W-T., Dörnyei, Z. and Schmitt, N. (2006) A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics 27, 78–102. VanderStoep, S.W. and Pintrich, P.R. (2003) Learning to Learn: The Skills and Will of College Success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Victori, M. and Tragant, E. (2003) Learner strategies: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of primary and high-school EFL learners. In M.P. Garcia Mayo and M.L. Garcia Lecumberri (eds) Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language (pp. 182–209). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Wakamoto, N. (2000) Language learning strategy and personality variables: Focusing on extroversion and introversion. International Review of Applied Linguistics 38, 71–81. Weinstein, C.E., Husman, J. and Dierking, D.R. (2000) Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (eds) Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 727–747). San Diego: Academic Press. Wenden, A.L. (1987) How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In A.L. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 103–117). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wharton, G. (2000) Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50, 203–243. White, C., Schramm, K. and Chamot, A.U. (2007) Research methods in strategy research: Re-examining the toolbox. In A.D. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 93–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ying-Chun, L. (2009) Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of university freshmen in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly 43, 255–280.

Part 2

Supporting Learner Autonomy

Chapter 3

Teachers’ Perceptions of Individual Differences in Turkish Primary School EFL Classes H. BEDIR

Introduction Second and foreign language research over the last few decades has focused on the debate concerning which classroom methods and materials can best encourage language learning and teaching. This trend has resulted from the failures in even the best lessons since the personal diversity and needs of the students are underestimated. This has led to researchers focusing on a blend of cognitive and affective way of language teaching methodology. Results of this focus on language learning and teaching have shed light on the consideration of unique patterns of learners since the methods and methodologies alone do not seem to be working effectively. Many of the studies have shifted from methods and materials into individual differences (IDs), such as age, gender, aptitude, motivation and so on, which can account for the differential success in language learning. All learners perceive the world in a unique way that helps them in how to think, how to make decisions and how to receive and process information. Hence, some learners may need verbal instruction, some need visual aids, and some would like to involve bodily in the language activities carried out. Researchers are increasingly concerned with the role of IDs in second/ foreign language learning and teaching focusing on why some learners are better at learning than others. The focus is partially within the framework of the humanistic approach, yet it has influenced second/foreign language learning and teaching since 1970. Even if there were numerous articles concerning the IDs, Peter Skehan’s (1989) Individual Differences in Second Language Learning was the first book published on this issue. Since 41

42

Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

then, there has been growing interest in IDs because IDs have become a central concern in second/foreign language learning (Breen, 2001; Cook, 2002; Selinker, 1972; Williams & Burden, 1997). Thus, such factors conducive to learning and teaching as teachers’ knowledge about learners as well as general pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of subject matter have become the focus of considerable research. Teachers’ knowledge about managing classrooms and conducting lessons is then intertwined with knowledge and beliefs about learners, learning and teaching. Haycraft states that ‘teaching English successfully is not just a question of method. We have observed many classes where teacher’s techniques were superb, but where the students were reluctant to learn because the teacher was not interested in them as human beings’ (Haycraft, 1978: 6). In addition, Oxford and Ehrman (1993) maintain that language teachers can provide most effective instruction if they observe, identify and grasp noteworthy individual learner differences in their classrooms. However, there does not seem to be consensuses on the concept of IDs. The literature does provide direct consideration of the issue. Ellis (1994), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) Lightbown and Spade (1999) have identified factors considered to be important in IDs in second/foreign language learning and teaching. The most frequent IDs listed in the related literature are age, motivation, attitude, personality, cognitive style, learning strategy and intelligence. For the purpose of this study, factors that may create IDs among learners and influence the second/foreign language learning were, from a broader point of view, categorized as cognitive, affective, physiological and social. A great deal of research, on the other hand, in education has emphasized the idea that teachers’ perceptions as well as their expectations for students’ future performance generally play a great role in the success of the students. Teachers’ perceptions also shape what they think, how they make decisions and how they define what’s important. Teachers’ judgments about how much they enjoy teaching students inevitably affect teachers’ behaviours. This can apply to entire classrooms and to individual students. Teachers may respond to difficult students by withdrawing support (Brophy & Good, 1974). Aim of the study The success of any instructional program designed to teach language depends on the effectiveness of the teacher who implements it. Teachers’ effectiveness to a large extent depends upon both how they perceive themselves and their students. There have been considerable studies focusing on how teachers perceive themselves, but there have been very few studies on how teachers’ perceive IDs. The foreign language teachers’ perceptions about IDs are vital especially when considering the many factors which

Teachers’ Perceptions of Individual Differences

43

influence the manner in which the language is taught. Thus, the ultimate purpose of this study is to find out the Turkish Primary School EFL teachers’ perceptions of IDs and the role of IDs in learning and teaching English. Building on this purpose, the following research questions were formulated so as to gain deeper insights into the language learning/teaching, teachers and IDs: (1) (2) (3) (4)

What are the teachers’ perceptions of IDs? Do teachers perceive IDs among the factors affecting English language teaching and learning? Do teachers modify their teaching to meet the needs of IDs? How do teachers modify their teaching for IDs?

Method This study was conducted as a descriptive research the ultimate aim of which was to obtain information about the teachers’ perception on IDs and language learning and teaching so as to shed light on the present situation. The data were obtained during the fall and spring terms of the 2008–2009 academic year. Participants The participants of this study were 123 primary school teachers who were randomly selected from a larger sample of teachers and who responded to the questionnaire. The ages of the teachers ranged between 26 and 40 and the majority of them were females (82.7% female and 17.3% male). The teaching experience of the teachers was as follows: 1–3 years 21.3%; 4–6 years 17.9%; 7–10 years 28.5% and more than 10 years 32.5%. Instruments A questionnaire consisting of two parts was designed for teachers to complete (Richardson, 1994). The first part of the questionnaire included open-ended questions aimed at finding out teachers’ views on helping and hindering factors in English Language teaching so that the respondent could elaborate on points of interests. The aim of these questions was to find out the teachers’ perceptions of IDs, whether or not they perceive IDs as a major factor hindering and/or helping language learning and teaching and whether or not they consider IDs as an effective factor in language learning and teaching. The second part of the questionnaire was a five-point Likert scale where teachers were asked to rate whether or not they are concerned with IDs in language learning and what activities they use to meet their educational needs that could be both academic and personal. The choices were

44

Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

associated with various audio visual materials and the use of technology in the class. The majority of the questionnaire was completed during a teacher training program, which was conducive to thoughtful answers, and the rest were obtained through e-mails from teachers teaching in different parts of Turkey, which still resulted in a good rate of return. A semi-informal interview session was conducted one day after the teachers completed the questionnaire. This was done to confirm the indications obtained from the questionnaire data. We aimed to pursue a line of thought developed during the conversation that may not have come to light from a questionnaire.

Data Analysis and Results Quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods were used to analyse the data. It was thought that the answers to open-ended questions could provide a systematic analysis of textual data, which could shed light on teachers’ perceptions of IDs. Thus, teachers’ responses to the openended questions were segmented, coded and analysed. The researcher with two other colleagues working on the issue examined the teachers’ statements to find areas of commonality or recurring patterns, and then to generate general categories. The quantitative data were analysed and depicted in the frequency distributions graph and tables. Teachers’ perceptions of IDs Through the use of the quantitative method of analysis, words and phrases fitting into the previously categorized IDs (though there is no certain categorization of IDs and there could be some overlapping) were categorized as Cognitive (Intelligence, Aptitude, Learning styles and Learning strategies); Affective (Self-Esteem, Inhibition, Risk-Taking, Anxiety, Empathy, Extroversion/Introversion and Motivation); Physiological (Age and Gender); Social (Identity – group memberships and the social categories to which one belongs – and Ethnic group affiliation). The data were first sorted, and the responses related to the subcategories of IDs were tallied and counted. The total number of tallies was then used to create a pie chart (see Figure 3.1). As seen in Figure 3.1, motivation, a subcategory of affective factors, is the most preferred perceived ID among the teachers (35, 26%). With the help of interviews and the categorized data revealed that teachers perceive motivation as willingness in learning or having favourable attitudes towards the English language, having goals and trying to achieve them, and being eager to participate in the activities. One of the subcategories of the cognitive factors regarding IDs, learning styles is another highly rated factor (28, 21%). However, the analysis of the data made it clear that the majority of the teachers were associating

Teachers’ Perceptions of Individual Differences

45

Figure 3.1 Teachers’ perception of IDs

learning styles with multiple intelligences and with the way students perceive information; auditorily, visually and kinesthetically. During interviews, the teachers pointed out that they were provided some inventories by the Ministry of National Education they could use to assess their students’ intelligences and modify their teaching techniques and materials accordingly. The third factor perceived by the teachers is aptitude (16, 12%). The blended data of responses in the questionnaires and interviews revealed that the teachers consider some of the students as good learners since they are good at learning English. On the other hand, a substantial number of teachers stated that the cultural and social environment the learners grow up in should be considered as an important factor in IDs (14, 10%). Age and learning strategies are also considered to be factors related to IDs though they are not considerable among the other factors (12,9% and 11,8%), respectively. In addition, very few teachers perceived intelligence, anxiety, extroversion/introversion, self-esteem and personality as IDs, yet they were collected under the title of ‘others’, due to their low frequency. Teachers’ perceptions on the helping and hindering factors in learning and teaching English The researcher categorized the responses into helping and hindering factors in learning and teaching English. In order to eliminate researcher-induced bias, each response was reviewed by three raters who worked through this process collectively and reached consensus in allocating responses to each category. The analysis of the data revealed two primary dimensions of factors in teaching and learning English. Within each of these dimensions,

Factors

• • • •

Course book Visual Audio Audio and visual

Hindering • Lack of technology • No variety in teaching and learning materials

Helping

Materials • Appropriate teaching methods • Variety of teaching techniques • Pair and group work

Methods

• Crowded classrooms • No family support • Teaching and learning environment • Education system

• Demotivation • Different kinds of ability groups • Personal ideas on foreign language

• Usage of mother tongue

Other

• Individual ability • Family interest • Native speakers • Motivation and interest • Background knowledge • Learning strategies

Student

• Effort of teacher • Knowing the students

Teacher

Dimensions

Table 3.1 Helping and hindering factors in learning and teaching English

46 Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

Teachers’ Perceptions of Individual Differences

47

there are five broad units of analysis: Materials, Methods, Teachers, Students and Other. Table 3.1 shows the matrix used to categorize the findings. The aim of this question was to find out whether teachers perceive IDs as a factor affecting teaching and learning English. The interpretation of fi ndings from the interviews shed light on perceptions related to IDs. There was a consensus among the teachers on helping factors as to what motivates the students, what background the students bring to the classroom, as well as the students’ interests. The following extract from the interviews exemplifies this general view: I have difficulty in attracting some low achieving students’ attention. These students seem to be suffering from problems associated with mainly poor social and economic conditions which diversify their thoughts into various areas of life. Modification of the teaching Tables 3.2 and 3.3 display the frequencies and percentages of the responses on whether teachers modify their teaching and how they modify it so that they meet the needs of all of the students. Responses to the question seeking answer to whether or not teachers modify their teaching shown in Table 3.2 indicate that the majority of the teachers modify their teaching to meet the needs of IDs. However, the data obtained through semi-formal interviews do not support these findings. The education system in Turkey is based on the nation-wide examination administrated by the Ministry of National Education every year. Starting from the 6th grade, the students have to take the examinations. The placement of candidates is based on their composite scores that are calculated by taking into account the average score obtained in 6th, 7th and 8th grade and school grade-point averages. It was inferred that the teachers were giving priority to the examinations the students have to take each year since, according to them, students, administrators, parents and others believe that exam results are important. Thus, teachers widely practice a teacher-centred approach in primary schools although they appear to be favouring a learner-centred approach that is also strongly supported in the literature. Table 3.2 The frequency of modifications applied to teaching Never

Do you modify your teaching in order to cater for IDs?

Seldom

Often

Very often

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

15

12.2

16

13.0

55

44.7

26

%

Always f

%

21.1 11

8.9

48

Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

Table 3.3 Forms of modifications applied to teaching Never

Seldom

Often

Very often

Always

f

%

f

%

f

f

f

%

Group working – mixed ability groups

6

4.9

30

24.1

48

39.0 30 24.4

9

7.3

Group working – same ability groups

18

14.7

44

35.8

43

35.0 15 12.2

3

2.4

Open-ended tasks, for example predicting describing a picture, finishing a story

13

10.5

29

23.6

53

43.1 22

6

4.9

Communicative activities – students talk to each other

6

4.9

26

21.1

39

31.7 36 29.3

16 13.0

Cooperative activities – students work and talk to each other

6

4.7

23

18.7

41

33.3 36 29.3

17 13.8

Word games and guessing games – students try to discover something

7

5.7

17

13.8

47

38.2 27 22.0

25 20.3

Activities for all learning styles: visual, auditory, kinesthetic

5

4.1

27

22.0

38

30.9 34

27.6

19 15.4

14

11.4

24

19.5

37

30.1 30 24.4

18 14.6

8

6.5

30

24.4

43

35.0 31 25.2

11

8.9

CALL activities

34

27.6

41

33.3

36

29.3

10

8.1

2

1.6

Self-access centers

22

17.9

43

35.0

42

34.1 14

11.4

2

1.6

Reporting on English books (library activities)

26

21.1

46

37.4

34

27.6

13 10.6

4

3.3

Differentiating homework optional activities

7

5.7

31

25.2

45

36.6 28 22.8

12

9.8

Role playing Reading drills with various levels of difficulty

%

%

17.9

The overall analysis of Table 3.3 reveals that the majority of the teachers are using various audio visual materials so as to modify their teaching to fit needs of the IDs. However, during the interviews they pointed out the following problems that prevent them from what they wish to do in the

Teachers’ Perceptions of Individual Differences

49

class. They commonly agree that ‘I feel confident in my ability to modify my teaching to meet the needs of IDs, yet there are so many problems which prevent me from putting the theory I have studied at faculty into practice.’ They also remark that ‘they don’t have much freedom in practical classes due to the exam constraints.’

Conclusions and Discussion What are the teachers’ perceptions of IDs? Even if there is diversity among the teachers, motivation, learning styles and aptitude are, respectively, the most frequently perceived IDs. Motivation changes due to a number of environmental factors, yet the teachers seemed to consider motivation as students’ eagerness, willingness, interest and desire to learn. This perception is closely associated with the definition stated by Gardner, as motivation is a ‘combination of effort plus desire to achieve a goal plus favourable attitudes towards the goal to be accomplished’ (Gardner, 1985: 11). The second factor perceived as ID is learning style associated with multiple intelligences and with how students perceive information presented by the teachers. This perception is partly associated with the common definition of learning style as an ‘individual’s natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing and retaining new information and skills’ (Reid, 1995: viii). It is assumed to have been derived from the provided materials and suggested methods based on how students perceive information (by the Ministry of National Education) incorporating Multiple intelligence into the curriculum. Dörnyei suggests that ‘learning styles appear to have very soft boundaries, making the category rather open ended, regardless of which perspective we approach it from’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 123). Aptitude is the third frequently perceived factor although it is commonly assumed as a useful explanation of IDs in speed of foreign language learning. Teachers consider some of the students as good learners since they are good at learning English, which fits MacDonough’s (1981: 129) definition, ‘aptitude is a disposition to be able to do something well.’ They, on the other hand, seemed to ignore the fact that each learner is unique; while some would like to participate in drama activities, others may be reluctant when they are asked to join in (Gardner, 1985). Additionally, they consider some of the students as potentially stupid as indicated in a previous study carried out by Bedir (2008). Teachers also perceive the social environment which is, according to them, associated with socio-economic background, culture social context students are from, which congruent with Vygotskian concept ‘Zone of Proximal Development.’

50

Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

Do teachers perceive IDs among the factors affecting English language teaching and learning? The categorized data revealed that teachers consider mostly education system, materials provided, teaching and learning environment, and crowded classroom as the main factors affecting teaching and learning English. Responses to questionnaires and interviews made it clear that a substantial number of teachers perceive IDs as aptitude, motivation, background knowledge and learning strategies and further that these are helping and hindering factors in English. Using data obtained through questionnaires and interviews we assume that all of the helping and hindering factors the teachers’ state are derived from the following beliefs about students and/or student activity: completing assignments, participating in the activities, coming to school prepared to learn, having family support or no support related to socio economic conditions or related to circumstances in the home environment. We also assume that teachers consider that due to socio-economic conditions or related circumstances in the home environment students may be unable to concentrate or focus on courses and may be unwilling or unable to interact with peers and/or teachers in school in an effective manner. However, while content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge remain important underpinnings, teachers should also become aware of how to overcome the affective factors in language learning and teaching. Thus, as Marlowe and Page (1999) suggest teachers can enable their students to use their strengths, skills and knowledge to develop and learn if they provide emotional support, modelling and other forms of scaffolding. Do teachers modify their teaching to meet the needs of IDs? There seems to be a controversy between responses obtained by the questionnaires and by the interviews. The teachers appear to have the content and pedagogical knowledge that help them modify their teaching methods and materials so as to address IDs, yet there seems to be problems in putting the theoretical knowledge into practice in the language classrooms. Teachers state that such common issues as crowded classrooms, examination based education system, the materials provided by the government, background of the students prevent them from differentiating their teaching. However, effective language teaching involves not only knowledge of IDs and their interrelationships, but also implications of this knowledge in class activities. Oxford states that ‘learning style is an overall pattern that provides broad direction to learning and makes the same instructional method beloved by some students and hated by others’ (Oxford, 2003: 273).

Teachers’ Perceptions of Individual Differences

51

How do teachers modify their teaching for IDs? The teachers pointed out that they were using different audio-visual materials and different teaching techniques to support the course book for IDs. The most preferred teaching techniques are to provide a studentcentred environment and use materials accordingly, although in a related study, Bedir pointed out that young EFL ‘classes are highly constructed to transmit knowledge from teacher to students, which enables the teachers to control the class, provide information about skills and language or control the activities’ (Bedir, 2008: 8).

Implications The data of the study reveal a few implications that should be taken into consideration. First of all, most of the teachers perceive that motivation is the most important ID factor in language learning and teaching. They seem to have come to this conclusion by observing students’ behaviours such as being willing, ready to learn, doing assignments and so on. In related studies, aptitude and motivation are considered as the two major factors influencing language learning (Dörnyei, 2001; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Naiman et al., 1978; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Ushioda, 1996, 2005, 2008). Motivation, however, could reside not in the individual but in the interaction of the individual with his or her environment (Hickey, 1997; McGroarty, 2001). In addition, Ushida (2005) claims that learners’ degree of success (i.e. linguistic outcomes) affects their feelings (i.e. nonlinguistic outcomes) and that ‘both outcomes will have an influence on ID variables influence including language attitudes and motivation’ (Ushida, 2005: 51). Thus, motivation should not be limited to a few factors; rather teachers should be aware of other factors motivating and demotivating students. The second implication is derived from the responses of the majority of the teachers stating that they consider the IDs and use a variety of materials to address their needs. However, there seems to be a conflict between theory (language learning and teaching process) and practice (practical applications) in language classrooms even if much good practice is based on good theory. Bedir (2008) points out that there is strong correlation between teachers’ teaching style and students’ learning styles, and teachers do not expect much from the student; hence, they do not want to teach much. They seem to be controlling the class, providing information about skills and language or controlling the activities. It is assumed that this conflict is first derived from a defined set of beliefs and values with which teachers enter the teaching–learning environment that may influence teachers’ interpretation of their behaviours in the classroom. The education system, based on competitive student selection and placement examination, seems to be another factor preventing teachers

52

Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

from carrying out extracurricular activities. The instructional materials designed in advance according to the system and the examinations students have to take can also affect teachers’ choice of different teaching methods and approaches. The last implication is that teachers seem to ignore the characteristics of the young language learner and the difference between learning a foreign language and other subjects. They consider the movements of the students in the class as unwillingness, or demotivation. However, it is true that young learners have shorter attention spans, and materials and methods used should be varied for each lesson and class. In addition, ‘there is no question that learning a foreign language is different to learning other subjects. . . . . The learning of a foreign language involves far more than simply learning skills, or a system of rules, or a grammar: it involves an alteration in self-image, the adoption of new social and cultural behaviours and ways of being, and therefore has a significant impact on the social nature of the learner’ (Williams & Burden, 1997: 77). References Bedir, H. (2008) Teaching and learning styles in EFL classes of young adolescents. Paper presented at 20th International Conference on Foreign/Second Language Acquisition. Szczyrk, Poland. Breen, M. (2001) Overt participation and covert acquisition in the language classroom. In M. Breen (ed.) Learner Contributions to Language Learning (pp. 112–140). Harlow: Pearson Education. Brophy, J. and Good, T. (1974) Teacher–Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Cook, V.J. (2002) Language teaching methodology and the L2 user perspective. In V.J. Cook (ed.) Portraits of the L2 User (pp. 325–344). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. (2001) New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21, 43–59. Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardner, R. and Lambert, W. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Haycraft, J. (1978) An Introduction to English Language Teaching. Singapore: Longman. Hickey, D.T. (1997) Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives. Educational Psychologist 22, 175–193. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York, NY: Longman. Lightbown, P.M. and Spade, N. (1999) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teachers’ Perceptions of Individual Differences

53

MacDonough, S.H. (1981) Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. McGroarty, M. (2001) Situating second language motivation. In Z. Dörnyei and R.W. Schmidt (eds) Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 69–90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii. Marlowe, B. and Page, M. (1999) Making the most of the classroom mosaic: A constructivist perspective. Multicultural Education 6, 19–21. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H.H. and Todesco, A. (1978) The Good Language Learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Oxford, R. (2003) Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. IRAL 41, 271–278. Oxford, R.L. and Ehrman, M. (1993) Second language research on individual difference. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 188–205. Oxford, R.L. and Shearin, J. (1994) Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal 78, 12–28. Reid, J. (1995) Preface. In J. Reid (ed.) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom (pp. ix–xvii). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Richardson, J.T.E. (1994) Using questionnaires to evaluate student learning: Some health warnings. In G. Gibbs (ed.) Improving Student Learning: Theory and Practice (pp. 73–88). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–213. Skehan, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Ushida, E. (2005) The role of students’ attitudes and motivation in second language learning in online language courses. CALICO Journal 23 (1), 49–78. Ushioda, E. (1996) Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik. Ushioda, E. (2005) Language learning motivation: Current insights and implications. BATJ Journal 6, 57–63. Ushioda, E. (2008) Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 19–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, M. and Burden, R. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 4

Learning Autonomy Support by Foreign Language Teachers M. STEC and A. STUDENSKA

Introduction Autonomy is commonly defined as the person’s capability to govern herself/himself (Kopalin´ski, 2007). The following criteria of personal autonomy are stressed by modern philosophers: having control over oneself and one’s own life, reflecting critically on one’s desires, values, wishes and plans as well as the ability to act in accordance with the results of such reflection (Dworkin, 1988; Haworth, 1986; Mele, 2001). Haworth (1986) distinguishes three components of autonomous decision making: competence combined with innovativeness and creativity, independence from others and self-control (defined as the control over one’s emotions and desires). Deci and Ryan (1985) in self-determination theory described autonomy as one of the basic human needs. The actions are highly autonomous if they are performed out of integrative or intrinsic motivation. It implies that a person acts because it is consistent with his/her value and goal system. Furthermore, the action itself is satisfying and rewarding. Reeve and Jang (2006) define an autonomous person in terms of internal locus of causality (the feeling that one initiates and regulates one’s actions), a sense of freedom in performing an action and a sense of having a choice concerning whether and how to act. In modern society the ability to acquire and use knowledge independently plays a crucial role in the career prospects and social status. Hence, autonomy in education becomes more and more an important factor, being defined as ‘the capacity to take charge of . . . one’s own learning’ (Benson, 2001: 47). In other words, learning autonomy is regarded as the attitude towards one’s own learning and life, which is characterized by taking responsibility (Michon´ska-Stadnik, 2004). Student’s control over his/her learning may be exercised at least in three areas such as: learning content,

54

Learning Autonomy Support by Foreign Language Teachers

55

meta-cognitive, cognitive and affective processes as well as behaviours, including learning strategies (Benson, 2001). Learning autonomy is recognized as one of the basic educational aims (Boud, 1995). It is also regarded as one of the general aims in foreign language teaching (Komorowska, 2005). The importance of learning autonomy in language education seems to be obvious as the process of learning a foreign language involves the acquisition of a skill. The skill requires a lot of repetitions before it becomes automated (Johnson, 1996). Therefore, a student’s independent work is one of significant determinants of success in learning foreign languages (Michon´ska-Stadnik, 1996). Moreover, the development of student’s autonomy is emphasized in method/process-oriented syllabuses and learner-centred approaches to teaching languages. The aim is to foster students’ autonomy through a variety of the classroom work such as: group or pair work, group or individual projects as well as task-based teaching. In addition students’ autonomy can be developed through a number of control techniques such as: peer/self-evaluation or summative/judgmental feedback. The intentional decrease of teacher’s power and control in the classroom is particularly advocated in syllabuses from the 4th grade up of primary schools (Cotterall, 2000). Nunan (1997) suggests that autonomy should be implemented and fostered in the five following stages: • Make students aware of learning goals, content and strategies facilitating solving tasks. • Give students an opportunity to choose learning goals and tasks out of the presented possibilities. • Allow students to modify learning goals, content and tasks. • Stimulate students to create their own language goals and tasks. • Help students to use what they have already learned during formal lessons in learning on their own. Wilczyn´ska (2008) emphasizes that the process of supporting learner autonomy should involve the development of communicative awareness and learning skills as well as creating opportunities to gain positive experiences both in communication and independent learning. Teachers may foster the development of learning autonomy in a number of ways. Within the paradigm of self-determination theory, learning autonomy support is related directly to the process of motivating students to learn. Reeve and Jang state: ‘autonomy support revolves around finding ways to nurture, support and increase students’ inner endorsement of their classroom activity’ (Reeve & Jang, 2006: 210). These authors list highly autonomysupportive style and highly controlling style as two extremes of the continuum depicting teachers’ motivating styles (Reeve & Jang, 2006).

56

Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

On the basis of literature, the five following sets of teacher’s behaviours are assumed to support students’ learning autonomy (Boud, 1995; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Stefanou et al., 2004): • Give students opportunities to make choices concerning formal lessons. Students may be allowed to select:  Classroom rules including evaluation.  Seating arrangements.  Group members.  Time of assignments.  What to do and how to do it. • Encourage students to direct their learning process independently and allow them to:  Choose their own goals of learning and pursue their interests.  Solve problems independently – students are allowed to think independently and than asked to justify their way of thinking, their choice concerning the way of completing a task or solving a problem.  Select materials for performing a task and the way in which they will show their knowledge and skills.  Evaluate their own work and reflect on their process of learning. • Stimulate students’ independent and informed choices by providing:  Reasons as to why a given course of action is preferred over others.  Hints on how to progress with the work when students have difficulties.  Information on their progress. • Consider students’ needs and emotions:  Allow students to express their opinions and share ideas.  Ask what students want.  Allow students to talk as well as listen to them.  Answer students’ questions and doubts. • Motivate students to engage in learning tasks:  Praise students verbally.  Give students verbal communications encouraging them to continue their work.  Encourage them to perform difficult tasks. However, not much research has been conducted to study the practical value of teacher’s behaviours stimulating students’ learning autonomy development. For example, Reeve and Jang (2006) showed that the following teachers’ behaviours are perceived by students as supporting their sense of autonomy: time given to discuss and do the tasks in their own way, praise for their progress, encouragement given them to work and perform difficult tasks, instructions and directions provided as well

Learning Autonomy Support by Foreign Language Teachers

57

as answers to their questions. In the qualitative research of 84 mathematics lessons in primary schools, Stefanou et al. (2004) distinguished three ways of learning autonomy support such as: organizational, procedural and cognitive. Autonomy is fostered in an organizational way by allowing students to make decisions on the content and progress during formal lessons. Autonomy development is facilitated procedurally when students are allowed to choose the form of presenting their learning results. Cognitive autonomy support takes place when students are asked to present and justify their way of thinking, performing a task or solving a problem. Stefanou et al. (2004) found that cognitive autonomy support was the most effective way to enhance students’ motivation to participate actively in the classroom tasks. Moreover, little research is devoted to teachers ‘behaviours fostering students’ learning autonomy which actually occurs in the classroom. Pus´lecki (2002) showed that students during formal lessons are allowed most frequently to choose a place of school work, ways of tackling tasks, work group members and educational aids. Students are least frequently given an opportunity to participate in planning a lesson and its aims, choosing time of taking a test and selecting teaching methods. Literature review shows that autonomy plays an important role in learning, especially in acquiring skills for the communication in a foreign language. Hence, autonomy is a theme of numerous theoretical considerations. Still, there is little empirical research devoted to the classroom activities that foster the development of autonomy. Additionally, there is little evidence for differences in learning autonomy support between teachers of foreign languages (FL teachers) and teachers of subjects other than foreign languages (teachers of other subjects than FL). Then, the aim of the chapter is to present the results of the survey comparing the ways in which the development of students’ learning autonomy is stimulated by FL teachers and teachers of other subjects than FL.

Problem and Hypotheses The main problem of the research was formulated as follows: What is the level of learning autonomy support among FL teachers in comparison with the level of learning autonomy support by teachers of other subjects than FL? The main problem was presented in the form of four specific research questions: (1)

Is there a difference between FL teachers and teachers of other subjects than FL in terms of: (a) The general level of learning autonomy support. (b) The level of teaching how to learn. (c) The level of considering students’ questions and opinions.

58

(2)

(3)

(4)

Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

(d) The level of giving students responsibility for the decisions concerning formal lessons. (e) The level of informing students of their performance and marking criteria? Which of 35 learning autonomy support elements included in the Learning Autonomy Support by Teachers Inventory (LASTI) are most frequently and most rarely used by the selected group of FL teachers? Which of 35 learning autonomy support elements included in LASTI are most frequently and most rarely used by the selected teachers of other subjects than FL? For which items of LASTI the ranks of their arithmetic means in both groups – FL teachers and teachers of other subjects than FL differ most?

Learning a foreign language is compared with the acquisition of a complex skill, which is different in nature from learning other subjects that require gathering declarative knowledge. This fact should be reflected by different frequency and ways in which FL teachers and teachers of other subjects than FL support their students’ learning autonomy. Therefore, the first research question led to the following hypothesis: H1. FL teachers and teachers of other subjects than FL would differ in terms of: (a) Arithmetic means of the overall result in LASTI. (b) Arithmetic means of the result in LASTI subscale ‘teaching how to learn’. (c) Arithmetic means of the result in LASTI subscale ‘considering students’ questions and opinions’. (d) Arithmetic means of the result in LASTI subscale ‘giving students responsibility for the decisions concerning formal lessons’. (e) Arithmetic means of the result in LASTI subscale ‘informing students of their performance level and marking criteria’. The second, the third and the fourth research questions are exploratory and diagnostic. The authors of this chapter decided not to present them in the form of hypotheses.

Materials and Methods Learning Autonomy Support by Teachers Inventory The support of learning autonomy was measured by means of LASTI consisting of 35 items. The Inventory was constructed by A. Studenska for the purpose of the research. The items were formulated on the basis of

Learning Autonomy Support by Foreign Language Teachers

59

teacher’s behaviours that are regarded as supporting students’ learning autonomy (Boud, 1995; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Stefanou et al., 2004). Principal Components Analysis of 215 teachers’ responses to 35 Inventory items (KMO = 0.880) extracted four components (eigenvalues: 10.55; 2.78; 2.10; 1.65) that were taken for further investigation. As a result of Horn’s parallel analysis, the number of components was determined (Pallant, 2005). Varimax rotation enabled the authors to divide all Inventory items into the four following subscales: • Teaching how to learn (16 items, Cronbach alpha = 0.92), that is ‘I tell my students how to learn effectively.’ • Considering students’ questions and opinions (six items, Cronbach alpha = 0.75), that is ‘I give my students time to ask questions during lessons.’ • Giving students responsibility for the decisions concerning formal lessons (seven items, Cronbach alpha = 0.75), that is ‘I allow my students to choose the tasks to perform during lessons.’ • Informing students of their performance level and marking criteria (six items, Cronbach alpha = 0.70), that is, ‘I inform students why they receive a given mark.’ The value of Cronbach alpha coefficient for all 35 LASTI items equals 0.92. Each Inventory item describes behaviour, which is considered to support autonomy, and is rated by each teacher on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often). For each respondent the general Inventory result is presented as the mean score for answers to all 35 Inventory items. The result on a given Inventory subscale is also calculated as a mean score for the answers to the questions in this subscale. The overall Inventory result and the result for each Inventory subscale may range from 1 to 5. The overall Inventory result is regarded as an indicator of the general level in supporting autonomy. The results of the items belonging to the subscales are perceived as indicators of the levels of students’ autonomy support through: teaching how to learn, considering students’ questions and opinions, giving students the responsibility of the decisions concerning formal lessons and informing students of their performance level and marking criteria. Participants The data were obtained from 215 Polish teachers from the Silesia Region, out of which 174 (88%) were women and 23 (22%) were men (18 persons did not provide the required information). The age of subjects ranged between 23 and 64 years with an average 37.6 (SD = 9.3). The average work experience of the teachers from the sample was 13.4 years (SD = 9.7; N = 211; four

60

Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

respondents did not complete the required information). Among the teachers who participated in the research 39.3% had been teaching from 0.5 up to 8 years, 24.6% from 9 up to 16 years, 19% from 17 to 24 years, 13.3% from 25 up to 32 years and 3.8% (eight persons) from 33 up to 40 years. The teachers participating in the research were divided into two groups: FL teachers and teachers of other subjects than FL. The details concerning these two groups are presented in Table 4.1. There were 66 FL teachers in Table 4.1 Characteristics of the research participants Data

Foreign language teachers*

Teachers of other subjects other than foreign languages†

Number (%) of women

53 (83.3%)

121 (92.4%)

Number (%) of men

13 (19.7%)

10 (7.6%)

Age (mean; SD)

M = 37.2; SD = 11.3

M = 37.7; SD = 8.4

Work experience (mean; SD)

M = 12.9; SD = 11.3

M = 13.6; SD = 8.9

Number (%) of teachers employed in:

Pre-primary schools

3 (2.3%)

Primary schools

13 (19.7%)

57 (43.5%)

Lower-secondary schools

5 (7.6%)

32 (24.4%)

Upper-secondary schools

5 (7.6%)

7 (5.3%)

Universities

Teachers of:

0 (0%)

27 (40.9%)

5 (3.8%)

Schools for children with special needs

1 (1.5%)

15 (11.5%)

More than one kind of school

15 (22.7%)

12 (9.2%)

Foreign languages

66

Science

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

43 (32.8%)

Humanities

0 (0%)

31 (23.7%)

Integrated education

0 (0%)

23 (17.6%)

Care and therapy

0 (0%)

18 (13.7%)

Physical education and art

0 (0%)

16 (12.2%)

*In the group of foreign language teachers all data were calculated for 66 persons. † In the group of 141 teachers of subjects other than foreign languages data were calculated for 131 persons because 10 persons did not provide required information.

Learning Autonomy Support by Foreign Language Teachers

61

the sample: 63 teachers of English (including 16 people from Teacher Training College of Foreign Languages in Cieszyn), two teachers of German and one teacher of French. The number of teachers of other subjects amounted to 141. There were no differences between teachers of various subjects in terms of age (Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 7.81; p = 0.170) and work experience (Kruskal– Wallis χ2 = 8.82; p = 0.120). Still, there were significant differences in terms of age (Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 26.11; p < 0.001) and work experience (Kruskal– Wallis χ2 = 25.85; p < 0.001) between teachers from various types of schools. Procedure The data from teachers of other subjects than FL were collected, thanks to ‘Metis’ and ‘WOM’ Centres of Teacher Development situated in Katowice. The data from FL teachers were gathered mainly, thanks to cooperation with Teacher Training College of Foreign Languages in Cieszyn, Teacher Development Centres mentioned above, via personal and e-mail contact with teachers. The Inventory completion normally took no more than 15 min.

Results The differences between foreign language teachers and teachers of other subjects in learning autonomy support The data indicating differences between FL teachers and teachers of other subjects than FL in learning autonomy support measured by LASTI and its subscales are presented in Table 4.2. Additionally, the table contains the descriptive distribution statistics due to the new measurement method used in the research. The values of the arithmetic means for the overall LASTI result and the results of its subscales may vary theoretically from 1 to 5. The data presented in Table 4.2 indicate that the arithmetic means of the overall Inventory result obtained in the research exceeded 3 (the level labelled ‘sometimes’ on the frequency scale) both for FL teachers and for teachers of subjects other than FL. As far as the results of the Inventory subscales are concerned, the lowest values of the arithmetic means were obtained for the subscale: giving students responsibility for the decisions concerning formal lessons (M = 2.76; SD = 0.74 for FL teachers and M = 3.04; SD = 0.60 for the teachers of subjects other than FL). The highest arithmetic means were found for the subscale: informing students of their performance level and marking criteria (M = 4.28; SD = 0.48 for FL teachers and M = 4.43; SD = 0.50 for the teachers of subjects other than FL). The profiles of the results in the Inventory subscales for FL teachers and teachers of subjects

66

2.03

4.97

0.11

1.20

Minimum

Maximum

Skewness

Kurtosis

0.29

−0.18

−0.93

2.327

5

1.63

66

4.97

2.09

141

of foreign languages

0.33

−0.46

4.94

1.94

141

of subjects other than foreign languages

Teachers

of subjects other than foreign languages

Teachers

of foreign languages

Teaching how to learn

Students' autonomy support by teachers – general level

Number of subjects

Statistics

0.28

−0.15

5.00

2.33

66

of foreign languages

7.715

−1.93

5.00

1.00

141

of subjects other than foreign languages

Teachers

Considering students’ questions and opinions

0.88

0.27

4.86

1.29

66

of foreign languages

0.45

0.08

5.00

1.29

141

of subjects other than foreign languages

Teachers

Giving students responsibility for the decisions concerning formal lessons

−1.34 2.21

−0.34

5.00

2.50

141

of subjects other than foreign languages

−0.58

5.00

3.00

66

of foreign languages

Teachers

Informing students of their performance level and marking criteria

Table 4.2 Differences between foreign language teachers and teachers of subjects other than foreign languages in learning autonomy support

62 Part 2: Supporting Learner Autonomy

KS test p

6.43