Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Learning and Teaching Styles

In Foreign and Second Language Education


Richard M Felder
North Carolina State University
Eunice R. Henriques
Universidade Estadual de Sao Paulo

ABSTRACT The ways in which an individual characteristically acquires, retains, and retrieves
information are collectively termed the individual’s learning style. Mismatches often occur be-
tween the learning styles of students in a language class and the teaching style of the instructor,
with unfortunate effects on the quality of the students’ learning and on their attitudes toward the
class and the subject. This paper defines several dimensions of learning style thought to be
particularly relevant to foreign and second language education, outlines ways in which certain
learning styles are favored by the teaching styles of most language instructors, and suggests steps
to address the educational needs of all students in foreign language classes.

Students learn in many ways—by seeing and of language learning by Oxford and her col-
hearing; reflecting and acting; reasoning logi- leagues (Oxford 1990; Oxford et al. 1991; Wal-
cally and intuitively; memorizing and visualiz- lace and Oxford 1992; Oxford & Ehrman
ing. Teaching methods also vary. Some 1993), and over 30 learning style assessment
instructors lecture, others demonstrate or dis- instruments have been developed in the past
cuss; some focus on rules and others on ex- three decades (Guild & Garger 1985; Jensen
amples; some emphasize memory and others 1987).
understanding. How much a given student Serious mismatches may occur between the
learns in a class is governed in part by that stu- learning styles of students in a class and the
dent’s native ability and prior preparation but teaching style of the instructor (Felder & Sil-
also by the compatibility of his or her charac- verman 1988; Lawrence 1993; Oxford et al.
teristic approach to learning and the instructor’s 1991; Schmeck 1988), with unfortunate poten-
characteristic approach to teaching. tial consequences. The students tend to be
The ways in which an individual character- bored and inattentive in class, do poorly on
istically acquires, retains, and retrieves infor- tests, get discouraged about the course, and
mation are collectively termed the individual’s may conclude that they are no good at the sub-
learning style. Learning styles have been ject of the course and give up (Felder & Silver-
extensively discussed in the educational man 1988; Godleski 1984; Oxford et al. 1991;
psychology literature (Claxton & Murrell 1987; Smith & Renzulli 1984). Instructors,
Schmeck 1988) and specifically in the context confronted by low test grades, unresponsive or
hostile classes, poor attendance, and dropouts,
Richard M. Felder (Ph.D., Princeton University) is may become overly critical of their students
the Hoechst Celanese Professor of Chemical (making things even worse) or begin to
Engineering at North Carolina State University, question their own competence as teachers.
Raleigh, NC. In this paper, we will explore the following
Eunice R. Henriques (Ph.D., University of North questions:
Carolina at Chapel Hill) is Livre Docente of 1. Which aspects of learning style are
Languages, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, particularly significant in foreign and second
Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. language education?

Foreign Language Annals, 28, No. 1,1995, pp. 21–31


FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

2. Which learning styles are favored by the two ways in which people tend to perceive the
teaching styles of most language instructors? world. Sensing involves observing, gathering
3. What can be done to address the educational data through the senses; intuition involves
needs of all students in foreign and second indirect perception by way of the sub-
language classes? conscious—accessing memory, speculating,
imagining. Everyone uses both faculties con-
Dimensions of Learning Style stantly, but most people tend to favor one over
In the sections that follow, we describe five the other. The strength of this preference has
dichotomous learning style dimensions derived been assessed for millions of people using the
from work of Felder et al. (1988, 1993), Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers
indicating the ways in which the educational & McCaulley 1985; Myers and Myers 1980),
needs of students with strong preferences for and the different ways in which sensors and
certain poles of the dimensions are not met by intuitors approach learning have been char-
traditional approaches to language instruction. acterized (Lawrence 1993). Sensor–intuitor
The concluding section offers a summary of differences in language learning have been
suggestions for meeting the needs of those explored by Moody (1988) and Ehrman and
students. Oxford (1990).
The proposed learning style dimensions may Sensors tend to be concrete and methodical,
be defined in terms of the answers to the intuitors to be abstract and imaginative. Sensors
following five questions: like facts, data, and experimentation; intuitors
deal better with principles, concepts, and
1. What type of information does the student theories. Sensors are patient with detail but do
preferentially perceive: sensory—sights, not like complications; intuitors are bored by
sounds, physical sensations, or intuitive— detail and welcome complications. Sensors are
memories, ideas, insights? more inclined than intuitors to rely on
2. Through which modality is sensory infor- memorization as a learning strategy and are
mation most effectively perceived: visual— more comfortable learning and following rules
pictures, diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, or and standard procedures. lntuitors like variety,
verbal—written and spoken words and formu- dislike repetition, and tend to be better
las? equipped than sensors to accommodate new
3. How does the student prefer to process in- concepts and exceptions to rules. Sensors are
formation: actively—through engagement in careful but may be slow; intuitors are quick but
physical activity or discussion, or reflectively— may be careless.
through introspection? Moody (1988) administered the MBTI to
4. How does the student progress toward un- 491 college language students at the first- and
derstanding: sequentially—in a logical pro- second-year levels. Fifty-nine percent of the
gression of small incremental steps, or students were intuitors, substantially more than
globally—in large jumps, holistically? the 40 percent found for a sample of 18,592
5. With which organization of information is general college students (Myers & McCaulley
the student most comfortable: inductive— facts 1985). This pattern is not altogether surprising
and observations are given, underlying if one presumes that a substantial number of the
principles are inferred, or deductive—principles students were either majoring in a language or
are given, consequences and applications are taking the courses as electives. As Moody
deduced? notes, language is by its nature symbolic, which
would tend to make it more attractive to
Sensing and Intuitive Learners intuitors than to the more concrete and literal-
In his theory of psychological types, Jung minded sensors.
(1971) introduced sensation and intuition as the Ehrman and Oxford (1990) studied
learning strategies and teaching approaches

22
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

preferred by sensors and intuitors in an should be a blend of concrete information


intensive language training program. The (word definitions, grammatical rules) and
sensors used a variety of memorization concepts (syntactical and semantic information,
strategies like internal drills and flash cards, linguistic and cultural background
liked class material that might better be information), with the percentage of each
described as practical than fanciful, and liked being chosen to fit the level of the course
highly structured and well organized classes (beginning, intermediate, or advanced) and the
with clear goals and milestones for age and level of sophistication of the students.
achievement. Intuitors preferred teaching
approaches that involved greater complexity Visual and Verbal Learners
and variety, tended to be bored with drills, and We propose to classify the ways people re-
were better able than sensors to learn ceive sensory information as visual, verbal, and
independently of the instructor’s teaching style. other (tactile, gustatory, olfactory). Visual
Basic language instruction that involves a learners prefer that information be presented
great deal of repetitive drill and memorization visually—in pictures, diagrams, flow charts,
of vocabulary and grammar (the sort of teach- time lines, films, and demonstrations—rather
ing style often found in pre-college and com- than in spoken or written words. Verbal learn-
munity college classes) is better suited to ers prefer spoken or written explanations to vi-
sensors than intuitors. If there is too much of sual presentations. The third category (touch,
this sort of thing without a break, the intu- taste, smell) plays at most a marginal role in
itors—who constitute the majority of the class, language instruction and will not be addressed
if Moody’s results are representative—may be- further.
come bored with the subject and their course This categorization is somewhat unconven-
performance may consequently deteriorate. On tional in the context of the learning style liter-
the other hand, strongly intuitive language ature (e.g., Barbe & Swassing 1979; Dunn,
instructors may tend to move too quickly Dunn, & Price 1978), in which sensory modal-
through the basic vocabulary and rules of ities are classified as visual, auditory, and
grammar in their eagerness to get to “the more kinesthetic. Since the five human senses are
interesting material”—grammatical complexi- seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling,
ties, nuances of translation, linguistic concepts, we suggest that “kinesthetic” does not properly
and cultural considerations. While the intuitive belong on a list of sensory input modalities. A
students may enjoy these topics, student’s preference for motion or physical
overemphasizing such material may result in activity of some sort during the learning
insufficient grounding in the building blocks of process belongs in a separate learning style
the language. The sensors, in particular, may category: our proposed system and Kolb’s
then start to fall behind and do poorly on (1984) model place it in the active/reflective
homework and tests. dimension, and the familiar model based on
Effective instruction reaches out to all stu- Jung’s typology (Lawrence 1993) includes it in
dents, not just those with one particular learning the extravert-introvert dimension.
style. Students taught entirely with methods The distinction between the visual-auditory
antithetical to their learning style may be made and visual-verbal classifications has to do with
too uncomfortable to learn effectively, but they whether reading prose is more closely related to
should have at least some exposure to those seeing pictures (which leads to the visual-
methods to develop a full range of learning auditory contrast) or to hearing speech (visual-
skills and strategies (Smith & Renzulli 1984). verbal). Three mechanisms have been proposed
To be effective, language instruction should for the process of extracting lexical significance
therefore contain elements that appeal to from written words (Martin 1978): direct
sensors and other elements that appeal to access (the reader jumps directly from the
intuitors. The material presented in every class

23
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

printed form of the word to its lexical their verbal classroom presentation with non-
meaning), indirect access (the printed words verbal visual material—for example, showing
are translated internally into sounds before in- photographs, drawings, sketches, and cartoons
formation about their meaning can be located in to reinforce presentation of vocabulary words,
lexical memory), and dual encoding (lexical and using films, videotapes, and dramatizations
memory can be reached either directly or to illustrate lessons in dialogue and
indirectly). An extensive body of research pronunciation.
supports a form of the dual encoding hypoth-
esis. Direct access is possible when words are Active and Reflective Learners
familiar or when artificial conditions imposed The complex mental processes by which
in a research setting make speech encoding perceived information is converted into
inefficient; however, when material is unfa- knowledge can be conveniently grouped into
miliar or difficult, lexical memory is speech- two categories: active experimentation and re-
accessed (Crowder & Wagner 1992). The flective observation (Kolb 1984). Active pro-
implication is that expository prose of the sort cessing involves doing something in the
one finds in books and on classroom chalk- external world with the information—dis-
boards is much more likely to be speech-me- cussing it or explaining it or testing it in some
diated than directly accessed when silently way—and reflective processing involves ex-
read, and so belongs in the verbal rather than amining and manipulating the information in-
the visual category. trospectively. An active learner is someone
Most people extract and retain more infor- with more of a natural tendency toward active
mation from visual presentations than from experimentation than toward reflective obser-
written or spoken prose (Dale 1969), while vation, and conversely for a reflective learner.
most language instruction is verbal, involving Active learners learn well in situations that
predominantly lectures, writing in texts and on enable them to do something physical and re-
chalkboards, and audiotapes in language flective learners learn well in situations that
laboratories. Given the preference of most stu- provide them with opportunities to think about
dents for visual input, one would expect the last the information being presented. The more
of these modes of presentation in particular to opportunities students have to both participate
be unpopular, an expectation borne out in and reflect in class, the better they will learn
research cited by Moody (1988). When new material and the longer they are likely to
community college students were asked to retain it (KoIb 1984; McCarthy 1987).
rank-order 13 instructional modes, including Language classes in which all students are rel-
lectures, discussion, slides, field trips, and au- egated to passive roles, listening to and ob-
diotapes, audiotapes ranked at or near the serving the instructor and taking notes, do little
bottom for the overwhelming majority of stu- to promote learning for either active or
dents surveyed. reflective learners. Language classes should
Recent studies of learning styles in foreign therefore include a variety of active learning
language education (e.g., Oxford & Ehrman experiences, such as conversations, enactment
1993) consistently place reading in the visual of dialogues and minidramas, and team
category, implying that instructors can meet the competitions, and reflective experiences, such
needs of visual learners solely by relying on as brief writing exercises and question
written instructional material. Certainly visual formulation exercises.
learners learn better if they see and hear words Small-group exercises can be extremely ef-
in the target language, but so do auditory fective for both active and reflective learners
learners: presenting the same material in (Johnson et al. 1991). Pose a question or prob-
different ways invariably has a reinforcing ef- lem (“Translate this sentence.” “What’s wrong
fect on retention. The challenge to language with what I just wrote?” “How many synonyms
instructors is to devise ways of augmenting

24
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

for ‘happy’ can you think of in 30 seconds?” on homework and tests until they grasp the
“What question do you have about what we total picture, but once they have it they can
covered today?”) and have students come up often see connections that escape sequential
with answers working in groups of three, with learners. On the other hand, sequential learners
one group member acting as recorder. Such can function with incomplete understanding of
exercises engage all the students, not just the course material, but they may lack a grasp of
small minority who typically participate in the broad context of a body of knowledge and
class, and are a rich source of responses and its interrelationships with other subjects and
material for subsequent discussion. The exer- disciplines.
cises also relieve the monotony of continuous Many authors who have done research on
lectures. In our experience, as little as five cognitive or learning styles have noted the im-
minutes of group work in a 50-minute period portance of this dichotomous pairing, and var-
can be enough to maintain the students’ at- ious terms have been used to describe
tention for the entire class. categories that appear to have points in com-
Group work must be used with care, how- mon with what we term the sequential and
ever: simply telling students to work together global categories: analytic and global (Kirby
on problems or projects can do more harm than 1988; Schmeck 1988); field-independent and
good. Most references on cooperative learning field-dependent (Witkin & Goodenough 1981);
(e.g., Johnson et al. 1991) point out that serialistic and holistic (Pask 1988); left-brained
students often respond negatively to group and right-brained (Kane 1984); atomistic and
work at first, and that the benefits of the holistic (Marton 1988); sequential and random
approach are fully realized when the group (Gregorc 1982). Luria’s (1980) working brain
work is structured to assure such features as model postulates successive and simultaneous
positive interdependence, individual ac- modes of processing, and Pask (1988) similarly
countability, and appropriate uses of teamwork distinguishes between stringing and clumping
and interpersonal skills. Reid (1987) studied modes of coding information and structuring
students from a variety of ethnic backgrounds responses. Schmeck (1988) believes that the
and found that every background expressed a analytic/global dimension encompasses all
minor or negative preference for group work, other cognitive styles, a belief shared by
with English speakers giving it the lowest Oxford et al. (1991).
rating. When language students have been Oxford (1990) proposes that this learning
taught cooperative skills, however, they style dimension can be tapped through studies
showed positive results in both language skill of brain hemisphericity. She cites studies of
and altruism (Gunderson & Johnson 1980; Leaver (1986) suggesting that left-brain (se-
Jacob & Mattson 1987). quential) thinkers deal more easily with gram-
matical structure and contrastive analysis,
Sequential and Global Learners while right-brain (global) thinkers are better at
Sequential learners absorb information and learning language intonation and rhythms. Se-
acquire understanding of material in small quential learners gravitate toward strategies that
connected chunks, and global learners take in involve dissecting words and sentences into
information in seemingly unconnected frag- component parts and are comfortable with
ments and achieve understanding in large structured teaching approaches that stress
holistic leaps. Before global learners can master grammatical analysis; global learners prefer
the details of a subject they need to understand holistic strategies such as guessing at words
how the material being presented relates to and searching for main ideas, and may respond
their prior knowledge and experience, a well to relatively unstructured approaches like
perspective that relatively few instructors community language learning that might not
routinely provide. Consequently, strongly appeal to sequential learners.
global learners may appear slow and do poorly

25
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

Inductive and Deductive Learners: they hear, but each day increases their ability to
A Perspective on the Language understand, retain, and use in conversation what
Learning/Acquisition Dichotomy they have taken in. Throughout the process they
Induction is a reasoning progression that gain in their ability to transfer strategies, make
proceeds from particulars (observations, mea- assumptions about the new language system,
surements, data) to generalities (rules, laws, formulate and test rules, and either keep or
theories). Deduction proceeds in the opposite abandon them. They continue this process
direction. In inductive presentation of class- (most of which is subconscious) until they
room material, one makes observations and fossilize, which they may do as soon as they
infers governing or correlating principles; in feel they have learned what they need to in
deductive presentation one starts with axioms, order to communicate in the language (Coulter
principles, or rules, deduces consequences, and 1983). In its progression from specifics to
formulates applications. As with the previous generalizations, acquisition is an inductive
dimensions, students may have moderate or process.
strong preferences for one or the other On the other hand, language learning is a
presentation mode; in particular, they may largely conscious process that involves formal
prefer deductive presentation because of its exposure to rules of syntax and semantics fol-
relatively high level of structure. lowed by specific applications of the rules, with
A large percentage of classroom teaching in corrective feedback reinforcing correct usage
every subject is primarily or exclusively de- and discouraging incorrect usage. The flow of
ductive, probably because deduction is an ef- the learning process from general to specific
ficient and elegant way to organize and present suggests its characterization as a deductive
material that is already understood. However, process.
there is considerable evidence that Three well-known approaches illustrate de-
incorporating a substantial inductive compo- ductive and inductive approaches to language
nent into teaching promotes effective learning. instruction. The first is the grammar-
Inductive reasoning is thought to be an translation method, rooted in the formal
important component in academic achievement teaching of Latin and Greek that prevailed in
(Ropo 1987). Current cognitive research Europe for many centuries (Rivers 1968). This
emphasizes the importance of prior knowledge method involves the translation of literary texts
in learning (Glaser 1984); introducing new followed by explanation (in the students’ native
material by linking it to observed or previously language) of rules of grammar. As Corder
known material is essentially inductive. The notes, grammar-translation is “the most
benefits claimed for inductive instructional deductive approach” (Allen & Corder 1975,
approaches (e.g., discovery or inquiry learning) 13). A later approach is the direct method, in
include increased academic achievement and which classes are taught entirely in the target
enhanced abstract reasoning skills (Taba 1966), language; grammar is taught inferentially and
longer retention of information (McConnell plays a secondary role to oral communication.
1934; Swenson 1949), and improved ability to This approach, which was in vogue in many
apply principles (Lahti 1986). countries throughout the nineteenth century
Insofar as foreign languages are concerned, (Allen & Corder 1975, 18), is almost purely
we propose that the distinction between in- inductive.
duction and deduction is akin to the distinction The third approach is the audio-oral method,
between language acquisition and learning. To according to which language is a set of habits
acquire a language means to pick it up with vocabulary being of secondary concern. In
gradually, gaining the ability to communicate this method, which was influenced by
with it without necessarily being able to behavioral psychology and structural
articulate the rules. Individuals absorb what linguistics, students learn by repeating
they can from the abundant and continuous structural patterns and eventually automatize
input that bombards them; they cannot grasp all the structures, aided by positive reinforcement

26
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

provided by the teacher. This approach method. By analogy, it would appear that an
combines acquired verbal skills (inductive) ideal classroom setting for teaching a foreign
with learned reading and writing skills (de- language would be one that stimulates and fa-
ductive), with emphasis on the former. As cilitates both inductive and deductive learning
Allen and Corder point out, “Advocates of the processes, both acquisition and learning. We
oral method .have assumed that language return to this theme in the concluding section of
learning is an inductive rather than a deductive the paper.
process.” (Allen & Corder 1975, 46). Many
common instructional techniques (e.g., the Validity and Utility of the Proposed
silent way, suggestopaedia, community lan- Learning Style Classification Scheme
guage learning, the total physical response, the Several critical points can legitimately be
communicative approach) essentially fall into raised regarding the proposed learning style
this category, although all may involve some categories. The categories are by no means
deductive elements. comprehensive: no finite number of dimensions
A long-standing controversy in language ed- could ever encompass the totality of individual
ucation has to do with whether languages can student differences, and components of other
be acquired in the classroom or only learned. learning style models in the references cited in
Brown (1980, 7), McLaughlin (1987, 20), and the introductory section also play important
Gregg (1987) believe that both learning and roles in determining how students receive and
acquisition may go on in classrooms. Krashen process information. Moreover, the dimensions
and Terrell (1983, 18) hold that acquisition can have not been shown to be fully independent,
only occur in natural settings, but later admit and validated instruments to assess individual
that “despite our conclusion that language preferences on all of them do not exist. Finally,
teaching is directed at learning and not the teaching style with which students feel
acquisition, we think that it is possible to en- most comfortable may not correspond to the
courage acquisition very effectively in the style that enables them to learn most
classroom” (Krashen & Terrell 1983, 27). We effectively. (The same point could be made
agree, and believe that the key question facing with respect to all other learning style models.)
language educators is, what classroom Having said all that, we would add that these
conditions and procedures facilitate the oc- disclaimers do not limit the usefulness of this
currence of language acquisition? or any other model. Although it can be helpful
An important consideration in attacking this for an instructor to know the distribution of
question has to do with the use to which an learning styles in a class, the point is not to
acquired or learned language is likely to be place all students into one or another style
applied. By its very nature, language acquisi- category and to teach each student exclusively
tion is more likely to manifest in oral fluency according to his or her preferred style. Even if
than in correct utilization of the written lan- this formidable goal could be achieved it would
guage and conversely for language learning. not be desirable, for reasons to be discussed.
Complete command of a language thus in- Rather, the goal is a balanced teaching style, in
volves both acquisition—an inductive process, all classes at all levels. Our hypothesis is that
required to speak fluently—and learning—a language instructors who adapt their instruction
deductive process, required to write to address both poles of each of the five given
grammatically. The two processes are not dimensions should come close to providing an
competitive but complementary, just as in- optimal learning environment for most (if not
ductive and deductive reasoning are essential all) students in a class.
and coequal components of the scientific

27
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

A Multistyle Approach most comfortable; if they tried to change to


To Foreign Language Education completely different approaches they would be
Studies show that matching teaching styles forced to work entirely with unfamiliar,
to learning styles can significantly enhance awkward, and uncomfortable methods, prob-
academic achievement, student attitudes, and ably with disastrous results from the students’
student behavior at the primary and secondary point of view. Fortunately, instructors who wish
school level (Griggs & Dunn 1984; Smith & to address a wide variety of learning styles need
Renzulli 1984), at the college level (Brown not make drastic changes in their instructional
1978; Charkins et al. 1985), and specifically in approach. The way they normally teach
foreign language instruction (Oxford et al. addresses the needs of at least five of the
1991; Wallace & Oxford 1992). This is not to specified learning style categories: regular use
say that the best thing one can do for one’s of at least some of the instructional techniques
students is to use their preferred modes of in- given below should suffice to cover the
struction exclusively. Students will inevitably remaining five.
be called upon to deal with problems and
challenges that require the use of their less • Motivate learning. As much as possible,
preferred modes, and so should regularly be teach new material (vocabulary, rules of
given practice in the use of those modes (Hunt grammar) in the context of situations to
1971; Friedman and Alley 1984; Cox 1988). which the students can relate in terms of their
However, Smith and Renzulli (1984) caution personal and career experiences, past and
that stress, frustration, and burnout may occur anticipated, rather than simply as more
when students are subjected over extended material to memorize (intuitive, global,
periods of time to teaching styles inconsistent inductive).
with their learning style preferences.
A point no educational psychologist would • Balance concrete information (word defini-
dispute is that students learn more when in- tions, rules for verb conjugation and adjec-
formation is presented in a variety of modes tive-noun agreement) (sensing) and con-
than when only a single mode is used. The ceptual information (syntactical and semantic
point is supported by a research study carried patterns, comparisons and contrasts with the
out several decades ago, which concluded that students’ native language) (intuition) in every
students retain 10 percent of what they read, 26 course at every level. The balance does not
percent of what they hear, 30 percent of what have to be equal, and in elementary courses it
they see, 50 percent of what they see and hear, may be shifted heavily toward the sensing
70 percent of what they say, and 90 percent of side, but there should periodically be
what they say as they do something (Stice something to capture the intuitors’ interest.
1987). What must be done to achieve effective
foreign language learning is to balance • Balance structured teaching approaches that
instructional methods, somehow structuring the emphasize formal training (deductive,
class so that all learning styles are sequential) with more open-ended unstruc-
simultaneously—or at least sequentially—ac- tured activities that emphasis conversation
commodated (Oxford 1990). The approach and cultural contexts of the target language
recommended in this paper is designed to meet (inductive, global).
this goal.
The prospect of tailoring language instruc- • Make liberal use of visuals. Use photographs,
tion to somehow accommodate 32 (25) different drawings, sketches, and cartoons to illustrate
learning styles might seem forbidding to and reinforce the meanings of vocabulary
instructors. This reaction is understandable. words. Show films, videotapes, and live
Teaching styles are made up of the methods dramatizations to illustrate lessons in texts
and approaches with which instructors feel (visual, global.)

28
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

REFERENCES
• Assign some repetitive drill exercises to pro- Allen, J.P.B., and S.P. Corder, eds. 1975.
vide practice in basic vocabulary and gram- Papers in Applied Linguistics. II. London:
mar (sensing) but don’t overdo it (intuitive). Oxford University Press.
Barbe, W.B., R.H. Swassing, and M.N. Milone.
• Do not fill every minute of class time 1981. Teaching through Modality Strengths:
lecturing and writing on the board. Provide Concepts and Practices. Columbus, OH:
intervals—however brief—for students to Zaner-Bloser.
think about what they have been told; assign Bonwell, C.C., and J.A. Eison. 1979. Active
brief writing exercises (reflective). Raise Learning: Creating Excitement in the
questions and problems to be worked on by Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
students in small groups; enact dialogues and Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George
mini-dramas; hold team competitions Washington University.
(active).
Brown, D. 1980. Principles of Language
Learning And Teaching. Englewood Cliffs,
• Give students the option of cooperating on at
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
least some homework assignments (active).
Active learners generally learn best when Brown, R. 1978. “The Effects of Congruency
they interact with others; if they are denied Between Learning Styles and Teaching
the opportunity to do so they are being Styles on College Student Achievement.”
deprived of their most effective learning tool. College Student Journal 12 : 307-309.
Charkins, R.J., D.M. OToole, and J.N. Wetzel.
• Balance inductive and deductive presenta- 1985. “Linking Teacher and Student
tion of course material. Instruct some or all Learning Styles with Student Achievement
of the class in the language being taught, to and Attitudes.” J Economic Education,
facilitate language acquisition and develop Spring 1985: 111-120.
skill in oral communication (inductive). In Claxton, CS., and P.H. Murrell. 1987. Learning
parallel, provide explicit instruction in syntax styles: Implications for Improving
and semantics to facilitate formal language Educational Practice. ASHE-ERIC Higher
learning and develop skill in written Education Report No. 4, Washington, DC:
communication and interpretation (deduc- George Washington University.
tive). Coulter, S.P. Cited in Robinett, B.W., and J.
Schachter. 1983. Second Language
Instructors confronted with this list might Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error
feel that it is impossible to do all that in a Analysis, and Related Aspects. Ann Arbor:
course and still cover the syllabus. Their con- University of Michigan Press, 179.
cern is not unreasonable: extensive use of some Cox, V. 1988. “Some Implications of Cognitive
of the recommended approaches—particularly Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Human
those involving opportunities for student Information Processing for Engineering
activity during class—could indeed add to the Education of the Future: Problem Solving,
time it takes to present a given body of Cognition and Metacognition.” 1988 ASEE
material. The idea, however, is not to adopt all
Annual Conference Proceedings. Portland,
the techniques at once but rather to pick several OR: American Society for Engineering
that look feasible and try them on an occasional Education.
basis; keep the ones that work; drop the others;
Crowder, R.G., and R.K. Wagner. 1992. The
and try one or two more later in the course or in
the next course. In this way a teaching style Psychology of Reading, 2nd Edition. New
York: Oxford University Press, Ch. 9.
that is both effective for students and
comfortable for the instructor will evolve Dale, E. 1969. Audio-Visual Methods in
naturally, with a potentially dramatic effect on Teaching, 3rd Ed. New York, Holt, Rinehart
the quality of learning that subsequently occurs. and Winston.

29
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

Ehrman, M., and R. Oxford. 1990. “Adult and Research (CLEAR) Project, Center for
Language Learning Styles and Strategies in Applied Linguistics. (Cited in Ehrman and
an Intensive Training Setting.” The Modern Oxford, 1990.)
Language Journal, 74: 311-327. Jensen, G.H. 1987. “Learning Styles,” in
Felder, R.M. 1989. “Meet Your Students. I. Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type
Stan and Nathan.” Chemical Engineering Indicator in Higher Education, J.A. Provost
Education 23: 2, 68-69. and S. Anchors, Eds. Palo Alto: Consulting
______ 1993. Reaching the Second Tier: Psychologists Press, 181-206.
Learning and Teaching Styles in College Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith.
Science Education.” J Coll. Sci. Teaching 1991. Cooperative Learning: Increasing
23: 286-290. College Faculty Instructional Productivity.
Felder, R.M., and L.K. Silverman. 1988. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
“Learning and Teaching Styles in 4. Washington, DC: George Washington
Engineering Education.” Engineering University.
Education 78: 674-681. Jung, C.G. 1971. Psychological Types.
Friedman, P., and R. Alley. 1984. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
“Learning/Teaching Styles: Applying the Kane, M. 1984. “Cognitive Styles of Thinking
Principles.” Theory into Practice, 23, 1: 77- And Learning: Part One.” Academic Therapy
81. 19(5): 527.
Glaser, R. 1984. “Education and Thinking: The Kirby, J.R. 1988. “Style, strategy, and skill in
Role of Knowledge.” American Psychologist reading.” In Schmeck (1988), Ch. 9, 53-82.
39: 93-104. KoIb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning:
Godleski, ES. 1984. “Learning Style Experience as the Source Of Learning and
Compatibility of Engineering Students and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Faculty.” Proceedings, Annual Frontiers in Prentice-Hall.
Education Conference. ASEE/IEEE, Krashen, S., and T.D. Terrell. 1983. The
Philadelphia, 362. Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in
Gregg, K.R. 1987. “Krashen’s Monitor and the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Occam’s Razor.” Applied Linguistics, 5: 79- Lahti, A.M. 1956. “The Inductive-Deductive
100. Method and the Physical Science
Gregorc, AF. 1982. An Adult’s Guide to Style. Laboratory.’ J Experimental Education
Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems. 24:149-163, cited in McKeachie, W.J. 1986.
Griggs, SA., and R.S. Dunn. “Selected Case Teaching Tips, 8th ed. Lexington, MA:
Studies of the Learning Style Preferences of Heath, 168.
Gifted Students.” Gifted Child Quarterly 28, Lawrence, G. 1993. People Types and Tiger
3:115-119. Stripes: A Practical Guide to Learning
Guild, P.B., and S. Garger. 1985. Marching to Styles, 3rd edition. Gainesville, FL: Center
Different Drummers. Alexandria, VA: for Applications of Psychological Type.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Leaver, B.L. 1986. “Hem isphericity of the
Development. Brain and Foreign Language Teaching.”
Gunderson, B., and D. Johnson. 1980. “Build- Folio Slavica 8: 2- 15.
ing Positive Attitudes by Using Cooperative Luria, A.R. 1980. Higher Cortical Functions in
Learning Groups.” Foreign Language Man, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.
Annals 13: 39-43. Martin, M. 1978. “Speech Recoding in Silent
Hunt, D.E. 1971. Matching Models in Reading.’ Memory and Cognition 6:108-114.
Education: The Coordination of Teaching Marton, F. 1988. “Describing and Improving
Methods with Student Characteristics. Learning.” In Schmeck (1988), Ch. 3, 229-
Toronto: Institute for Studies in Education. 274.
Jacob, E., and B. Mattson. 1987. Using McCarthy, B. 1987. The 4MAT System:
Cooperative Learning with Language Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left
Minority Students: A Report from the Field. Mode Techniques. Barrington, IL: EXCEL,
Washington: Center for Language Education Inc.

30
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

McConnell, T.R. 1934. “Discovery Versus Reid, J.M. “The Learning Style Preferences of
Authoritative Identification in the Learning ESL Students.” TESOL Quarterly 21:87-111.
of Children.” Studies in Education 2, 5:13- Rivers, W.M. 1968. Teaching Foreign
60. Language Skills. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second Press, 14.
Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold Ropo, E. 1987. “Skills for Learning: A Review
Publishers. of Studies on Inductive Reasoning.”
Moody, R. 1988. “Personality Preferences and Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Foreign Language Learning.” The Modern Research 31: 3 1-39.
Language Journal 72: 389-401. Schmeck, R.R., ed. 1988. Learning Strategies
and Learning Styles. New York: Plenum
Myers, lB., and M.H. McCaulley. 1985.
Press.
Manual: A Guide to the Development and
Smith, L.H., and J.S. Renzulli. 1984. “Learning
Use of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator. Palo
Style Preferences: A Practical Approach For
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Classroom Teachers.” Theory into Practice
Myers, lB., and P.B. Myers. 1980. Gifts 23: 44-50.
Differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Stice, J.E. 1987. ‘Using KoIb’s Learning Cycle
Psychologists Press. To Improve Student Learning.” Engineering
Oxford, R.L. 1990. ‘Missing Link: Evidence Education 77: 29 1-296.
from Research on Language Learning Styles Swenson, E.J. 1949. “Organization and
and Strategies,” in Georgetown University generalization as factors in learning, transfer,
Round Table on Languages and Linguistics and retroactive inhibition.” Learning Theory
1990. Washington, DC: Georgetown in School Situations. Minneapolis: Univ. of
University Press. Minnesota Press.
Oxford, R.L., and M.E. Ehrman. 1993. “Second Taba, H. 1966. Teaching Strategies and
Language Research on Individual Cognitive Functioning in Elementary School
Differences.” Annual Review of Applied Children. U.S.O.E. Cooperative Research
Linguistics 13: 188-205. Project No. 2404. San Francisco: San
Oxford, R., M. Ehrman, and R. Lavine. 1991. Francisco State College.
“Style Wars: Teacher-Student Style Wallace, B., and R.L. Oxford. 1992. “Disparity
Conflicts in the Language Classroom,” in S. in Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in
Magnan, ed., Challenges in the 1990’s for the ESL Classroom: Does This Mean War?”
College Foreign Language Programs. AMTESOL Journal 1: 45-68.
Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Witkin, H.A., and DR. Goodenough. 1981.
Pask, G. 1988. ‘Learning strategies, teaching Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. Field
strategies, and conceptual or learning style.” Dependence and Field Independence. New
In Schmeck (1988), Ch. 4, 83-100. York: International Universities Press.

31